P
ProVobis
Guest
The last time I heard this, I thought it was His wrath.
Maybe it’s because I have only a conceptual understanding of electricity and sound waves.
- Status
Maybe it’s because I have only a conceptual understanding of electricity and sound waves.
J
JReducation
Guest
You have to remember a few things. First, until the 20th century, most Franciscans were not priests. We were founded as an order of brothers. Many priests abandoned their posts to become brothers. Most of the men who entered, were not ordained. So if by “unvested” you mean non-ordained, the answer is yes. Very often the superior of the house is not a priest, but he outranks the priest. You don’t tell your superior that he’s not allowed on the sanctuary because he’s not a priest. That would be terribly rude.Errr … are you saying that the lay congregation were allowed to handle the host at masses at Franciscan friaries prior to the 60’s and that unvested laity were also allowed into the sanctuary?
Because most of our chapels are inside the enclosure, the only secular people that came in were men. They could be lay or clergy. Women did not come into the chapel. Even today, unless the chapel has access from the outside or the guardian of the house lifts the enclosure, which he has the power to do, women do not enter the chapel. But men certainly do visit. More often than not, they are friends, relatives, retreatants or prospective vocations.
This has never been a big issue for the Cistercian or the Franciscan families, because of the way we were founded. The Cistercians were founded to be monks, not to be priests. Everyone is a monk. Accidently, some monks are priests as well. The Franciscans were founded to live in the world in obedience to the Gospel as a fraternity of equals with each other and with the laity. Accidently, some priests joined us at the beginning and in later years, brothers were ordained to meet the needs of the Church. But priests were never seen as essential to these two ways of life. The priest never had special privileges. His role in liturgy is to offer the sacrifice for his brothers and to minister to his brothers through the priesthood. Observe that the focus is brothers, not sons. Only Francis and his canonically elected successors are father. It’s a very different model of the priesthood and of the liturgy.
The brotherhood gathers in sacred space to offer the sacrifice, led by one of its own. Actually, our chapels do not have real sanctuaries, at least not in the sense that you may be thinking. There may be a one step platform just big enough to accommodate the community around the altar. Watch the mass on EWTN. You’ll see that the sanctuary is just a platform that is very narrow and goes from one wall to the other. In any case, that sanctuary is the typical Franciscan sanctuary. If the brothers were alone or they had only one or two guests, they could all stand around the altar, because there are no railings to hinder them. Some of our chapels do not have that platform. The house in which I live does not have it. The chapel was a small bedroom. It’s just a space that’s 9 X 10. Everything is on the same floor. In our mind, the sacred space is the entire room, not just the sanctuary.
There are parishes. That’s a whole other story. Those are built according to the needs of the diocese and according to diocesan regulations. Religious orders do not own parishes. They administer them. The bishop owns them. Whatever the bishop wants,that’s how it’s built. All designs have to be approved by the diocese.
But again, we’re off topic and I don’t want to get into trouble here.
It depends on whether you’re being naughty or nice. In all seriousness, there has been more written by the mystical masters on the whisper of God’s love heard through prayer than on his wrath. Wrath is a very Jewish image. I know this well, because I’m a Jew. In ancient Israel, the wrath of God was an expression used to mean God’s justice. It’s not that Jews ever believed that God became so angry that he lost control as did the pagan gods. It was a form of expression that both Jews and pagans understood.The last time I heard this, I thought it was His wrath.
We don’t discount God’s justice. However, the mystics have always spoken of their experience of God’s love in this dialogue that we call prayer. Even God’s justice is an act of love.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
ProVobis
Guest
I suppose, if you’re okay with the “world without end” and the “Lord be with you” language when the Lord is supposed to be already with you.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps, although it’s hard not to see that anger when Moses returned to find his fellow Jews worshipping false gods. (Just thinking about the movie “Ten Commandments.”)
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Sorry for diverting the thread, but my point is that, at the friaries when the fathers say mass and the general public can attend, they didn’t let the general public into the sanctuary to do readings or receive CITH, before the 60’s?
Like, I live near a friary. I can’t imagine them allowing CITH to the general public and having lay lady lectors, before the 60’s/70’s?
Like, I live near a friary. I can’t imagine them allowing CITH to the general public and having lay lady lectors, before the 60’s/70’s?
M
malphono
Guest
FWIW, I recall having been to Masses at 2 different Franciscan Friaries in the 1970s. One was the SA (Society of the Atonement) and the other was the Capuchin novitiate. Neither was “open to the public” and in neither did I see the even the community gathering around the sanctuary.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Couldn’t say, if I’m not praying in Latin, I’m praying in French
That said, do you think it matters as much as what’s on the heart of the one praying? You can’t attribute a bad translation to the person saying the prayer.
T
TimothyH
Guest
It wasn’t rage, it was justice.
The people had just entered a covenant with God. They willingly accepted the requirements of the covenant - the Levitical law - and knew the consequences if they were unfaithful to the covenant. Death and life, blessing and curse - consequences for unfaithfulness and blessings for faithfulness - this was clearly understood by the people, and they swore an oath. God, on his own part, made it clear and promised that that if Israel accepted the covenant, death would be the result if they turned and worshipped any other God. Israel responded, “No. We will do everything you say!” and freely entered the covenant, and it took them less than 40 days before they went off the reservation entirely.
That God didn’t wipe them out entirely shows his mercy. He had every right to do so.
-Tim-
P
ProVobis
Guest
Of course not. Hearts don’t need words to speak.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
You may recall that in the short CNS video on the Latin Renaissance I linked back in post #672, the priest actually uses the phrase “stirring of the heart” in discussing use of Latin vs. Latin literacy.
I will say that although I still have little formal comprehension of Church Slavonic, it still manages to stir mine, as does the use of Latin in the Mass. I still find, however, that the mix of traditional liturgical language with vernacular produces a rather profound effect. Over time, if done consistently, basic comprehension should emerge (we still learn language best through immersion).
J
JReducation
Guest
Definitely. I had to learn Spanish to get my doctorate in theology. However, I did not truly learn to speak it until I went to the missions in South America.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree to some extent. I found this clip which shows how nicely some code-switching between Spanish and Latin works.
youtube.com/watch?v=Du-cM3Zal08
(Mass starts at 2:51)
J
jeannetherese
Guest
That is lovely.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I pulled this link from another thread as it speaks to some of the issues we have discussed here. It describes the resurgence of Latin study, its support within the Church, the connection between language and tradition, the importance of Latin in relation to Western European culture, and the creation of new institutions to support and promote the language.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203950.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+headlinebistro_complete+%28Headline+Bistro±+All+News%29
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203950.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+headlinebistro_complete+%28Headline+Bistro±+All+News%29
J
JReducation
Guest
I knew someone with a name like Jeanne Therese would come up with something cool.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Thanks for posting. This article appears to be a companion piece to the CNS video previously linked in this thread, as shown above - thought you might enjoy seeing the video, as well, which also features Fr. Gallagher.
O
OraLabora
Guest
That has certainly been my experience with praying a good part of the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin, with the French translation alongside. I find myself glancing at the French side less and less as time goes on.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
That has been my experience with both Church Slavonic and Latin, especially if used strategically, say for the Consecration, where the vernacular equivalents are well known, and responses are required. This simulates conversational immersion, using sound, context and visual imagery that is familiar to the learner.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
What do Latin adherents think about this article?
cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=1932&pagetypeID=8&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1
Mind you the difference between a Ukrainian Liturgy and an English Liturgy is only the language. Unlike the OF and EF where a lot of things are different besides the language.
And here’s some notable quotes:
cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=1932&pagetypeID=8&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1
Mind you the difference between a Ukrainian Liturgy and an English Liturgy is only the language. Unlike the OF and EF where a lot of things are different besides the language.
And here’s some notable quotes:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Thanks. Perhaps I’ll check out one of these Ukrainian parishes in Chicago.
- Status