Praying in Latin

[ConstantineTG]

You, being bilingual, should know the answer to this. The faith I’ve been taught, first from Polish priests in Polish and second from American nuns in English, isn’t what I would consider contradictory but let’s just say that I see two different sides of the same faith.

I see no difference. The Franciscans and the Brothers of the Christian Schools did a great job

 

[domNoah]

I think the problem we have this way of thinking in the Roman Cathoilc Church today was that missionaries of the Latin faith came with the colonizers. Colonizers weren’t interested in the culture of the land, they wanted to conquer the land and impose their culture. So the missionaries evangelized using the culture and language of the colonizers. In the East the faith spread by missionaries who were not backed by military might. For one thing, the other nations that were evangelized were as powerful as the armies of the Christian kingdoms. So missionaires came bringing the faith to the people in their culture and language.

My Friend, I am sure that when making that statement you were unaware that Jesuit missionaries translated the bible, and many devotional prayers and hymns into Iroquois for the North American Indians?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

I’ve tried to clean up this thread. You have a good subject here, but you’re all guilty of tainting the dialogue. Everyone, take a step back.

NO

1. Talking about each other
2. Trying to convince each other to pray in Latin or to convince anyone else to do so either
3. Misuse of papal statements or St. Thomas Aquinas just to drive home a point – that’s agenda posting
4. Comparing those who pray in Latin and those who do not
5. Comparing praying in Latin and praying in the vernacular

All of these things seem to draw people into arguments the the richness of your personal experiences are lost.

Thank You

 

[ProVobis]

My Friend, I am sure that when making that statement you were unaware that Jesuit missionaries translated the bible, and many devotional prayers and hymns into Iroquois for the North American Indians?

Good point.

Even the conquering Romans learned the language of the conquered Greeks as well as their culture, literature, philosophy, etc. And even allowed it to flourish.

 

[una_fides]

If you scroll up, I teach my grade 6 CCD kids all of the common prayers in Latin and the parts of the EF and OF.

That’s great! I never knew the Franciscans did that. So I just read that the Franciscans never had their own rite like the Dominicans and other orders do. Do you have any thoughts as to why or any insights into their liturgical development? Obviously the different traditional rites for the different orders are very very similar to the traditional Roman rite (aka EF), but they have their own nuances, which I find interesting. The Domincans laying prostrate on the ground for the “Domine non sum dignus” portion and there are many different added prayers there, etc. I know the Franciscans have the tradition of wearing sandals, but do they have anything else? Any distinct prayers etc?

 

[una_fides]

Meritous of what? How is learning to pray in a certain language meritous? Do you really think God is impressed by one’s language skills? Did Jesus become man to teach us a language? Is language a path to salvation?

Sorry, but all these claims about Latin as a language sounds more befitting a cult than a true religion.

It actually makes sense when you think about the nature of merit and good works.

First, if you want to read up completely on the subject, here is a lengthy article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject: newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

It explains for example about how prayer is a form of penance:
…since, in the present state of fallen nature, there neither is nor can be a meritorious work which in one way or another has not connected with it difficulties and hardships, theologians unanimously teach that all our meritorious works without exception bear a penal character and thereby may become automatically works of satisfaction. Against how many difficulties and distractions have we not to contend even during our prayers, which by right should be the easiest of all good works! Thus, prayer also becomes a penance, and hence confessors may in most cases content themselves with imposing prayer as a penance.
I was given once for a penance to begin to read a book about a saint so that I can learn about his / her life ultimately in order to please God. If laboring to read a book is a form of penance, then I think it’s easy enough to also see that if one learns Latin with the intention of doing so in order to be able to pray in that sacred language and therefore please God and unite himself with the pope, etc then obviously one can view that as a form of a good work one is doing for God and also as a form of penance. Thus, when one is laboring away and studying Latin in order to learn how to pray in the Church’s language and read Church documents, he is doing something that is therefore pleasing to God and consequently is doing something good for his soul in the process. Again this would be a labor of love for God. If he were to do it strictly for an academic purpose, then obviously that would be entirely different. Obviously if one were a Greek Catholic and wanted to study Greek for similar purposes such as to be able to pray better in a Greek liturgy or to be able to read and study Scripture in the original language and thereby better understand God’s Word for example there would be merit in doing so as well. Hope this helps clear up any confusion by putting that wording it in a more complete context.

 

[una_fides]

The please explain to me in a theological way with references to teachings of Fathers, Saints, Confessors, Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, etc., how the use of a particular language has in our salvation?

see post above.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t pray in Latin or in whatever language we want to. I’m just saying that some claims are so absurd that they befit cults more than the true faith. To say that a language has merit with God, how so? Is God a linguist impressed by our mastery of a dead language? And that begs the question, is heaven a place that we get to only because we impress God? That understanding alone is contrary to true Christian teaching and actually falls into the claims of anti-Catholics and anti-Christians that we worship a petty and vengeful God. If heaven is nothing more than a merit system, then yes, those claims are true. But that is not the truth, that is why I am speaking against such claims as a meritous language.

Actually meritorious language is distinctly and completely Catholic in every sense. Protestant teachings have certainly distorted the truth and the correct way of understanding merit and how that works, but it is most certainly Catholic. I suggest reading that Catholic encyclopedia article above. It gives the full explanation of Catholic teaching regarding merit, explains and clears up protestant misunderstandings, and hopefully should help clear everything up for you. Put simply, merit is not “impressing God.” It is synonymous with good works themselves in that God rewards us for our good works. This is straight from Sacred Scripture. Here is the Catholic definition of good works:
Morally good acts that, when performed in the state of grace, merit supernatural reward. The term became highly controverted in Reformation times, when the leaders of Protestantism, notably Martin Luther (1483-1546), claimed that faith alone, and not good works, justifies. Implicit in the Catholic doctrine on good works is the belief that man’s nature has not been totally depraved by reason of Adam’s fall. Man is able freely to co-operate with divine grace to perform good works. His liberty is not totally enslaved by sin.
catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33781
To tie this all back in with learning to pray in Latin, it is a morally good act to labor to learn to pray to God in the sacred language of his Church, as long as it’s being done with the correct intention. Also just to anticipate the taking this to the extreme as has already been done on here before, no one is saying that learning to pray in Latin is somehow the most meritorious act that someone can do and no one denies that there are much more meritorious good works and acts of penance that one could perform. That’s not the point and that’s not the ideal reason why someone would strive to learn to pray in Latin if done solely for the purpose as an act of penance. It’s merely a defense of the statement earlier that there is value in applying one’s self to this goal of learning the language in order to pray and deepen one’s knowledge of Church teachings, etc.

 

[GangGreen]

I think it’s great to pray “written” prayers in Latin. I don’t always do it, but sometimes I do. Pater Noster instead of Our Father, things of that nature. In church I find myself substituting Latin for English for the heck of it. If it helps you get a little more out of praying, then why not? Although for regular impromptu prayer, English gets the job done.

 

[JReducation]

That’s great! I never knew the Franciscans did that. So I just read that the Franciscans never had their own rite like the Dominicans and other orders do. Do you have any thoughts as to why or any insights into their liturgical development? Obviously the different traditional rites for the different orders are very very similar to the traditional Roman rite (aka EF), but they have their own nuances, which I find interesting. The Domincans laying prostrate on the ground for the “Domine non sum dignus” portion and there are many different added prayers there, etc. I know the Franciscans have the tradition of wearing sandals, but do they have anything else? Any distinct prayers etc?

We have our own liturgical calendar. With that comes our own missal, lectionary and breviary. We don’t follow the same schedule of holy days as you do. We have certain customs that are carryovers from the beginning. Much of it has been borrowed by the modern Church. Some of those are

1. Tabernacle in the front center – that’s totally Franciscan. No one else did it before we did.
2. No communion rails
3. Standing for the Canon of the Mass except at the consecration
4. The priest facing the community – ad orientem to us is to face the crucifix on the altar
5. No kneelers – use the floor or stand
6. No Gregorian chant unless you have an indult
7. The priest may never stand out from the laity or from his brothers – his actions must be very subtle and gestures are minimal – only what is absolutely necessary. Vestments are to be austere.
8. The sanctuary is to be bare. No statues, maybe one of Our Lady and another of St. Francis or St. Clare, that’s it.
9. The building must be simple, but dignified. No spaceships and nothing too grand either, except in cases of shrines and basilicas
10. The laity is to be catechized in Franciscan spirituality. Every sermon and every catechetical instruction must come from one of our doctors or spiritual writers, not Aquinas or other – but the laity doesn’t know this, because it all leads to the same place.
11. When celebrating the mass, the friars are to be simple with few gestures such as bowing, genuflecting more than once at the beginning and at the end, and no praying hands. The hands arms are to be folded. Most of us usually fold them inside of our sleeves. It’s quite comfortable.
12. You must take off your shoes during the mass and the LOTH

You won’t find this in every church that we run. Many of them were not built buy us. Others were built under our supervision, but they were commissioned by the bishop or a donor. In that case, the friars always follow the wishes of that person.

Before Vatican II, we had the Seraphic Missal. That form of the mass was pre-Tridentine. It was the precursor to the Tridentine mass. Everything that is in the Tridentine mass was in that mass, but the Tridentine added the prayers at the foot of the altar, the last Gospel and the prayers to St. Michael. We did not use any of that. We began the mass pretty much as the OF begins today, with the Sign of the Cross and the communal penitential act. Our mass was always dialogue. Thee was no whispering.

When that mass was abrogated by Pope Paul VI, we were allowed to use the OF, which was all there was and given permission to design our own novus ordo. Today, we have the Roman - Franciscan Missal. It’s pretty much the OF, with a different calendar and a few rubrics that are different, but not noticeable to the average person . . . unless he attends mass at our place and then runs down the street and compares. I actually know someone who did this. She was very upset because the readings and the prayers didn’t match.

For example, today we celebrate St. Felix Cantalice. No one else does. On October 4, we had the great Solemnity of St. Francis which began on Oct 3. No one else does this. On October 22, we will celebrate the Feast of Bl. John Paul II, only the OCDs, Rome and Poland do this.

Those are the few details that are different.

The liturgy was never a big concern for Francis and Clare. That’s the reason that we never developed our own rite. One has to remember that the Franciscan men are an order of brothers. Even if one is a priest, he is a religious brother. To have a Franciscan Rite, would mean that the priests in the community had something that set them apart from their brothers. This was not the supposed to happen. Francis didn’t even allow the priests to call themselves Father. That’s a very modern thing. They were all called Brother. Today, we’re slowly moving back to everyone being called brother so that you can’t tell the ordained and the non ordained friars apart.

The Dominicans are different. They were founded as an order of priests. The coadjutor brothers are Dominican, but they are considered to have a different vocation from the Dominican fathers. The same is true of the Carmelites and Carthusians. That’s why they could have their own rites. The priests belonged to that particular rite and the other monks and friars were Roman Rite.

Francis and Clare opposed any distinction among us. To avoid distinction, no particular Franciscan rite was developed so as not to fill the heads of the brother priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

Saint Augustine says something similar to your point, una fides:

Chapter 2.— What Was Prophetically Prefigured in the Sons of Noah.

The things which then were hidden are now sufficiently revealed by the actual events which have followed. For who can carefully and intelligently consider these things without recognizing them accomplished in Christ? Shem, of whom Christ was born in the flesh, means “named.” And what is of greater name than Christ, the fragrance of whose name is now everywhere perceived, so that even prophecy sings of it beforehand, comparing it in the Song of Songs, Song of Songs 1:3 to ointment poured forth? Is it not also in the houses of Christ, that is, in the churches, that the “enlargement” of the nations dwells? For Japheth means “enlargement.” And Ham (i.e., hot), who was the middle son of Noah, and, as it were, separated himself from both, and remained between them, neither belonging to the first-fruits of Israel nor to the fullness of the Gentiles, what does he signify but the tribe of heretics, hot with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which the breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which they disturb the peace of the saints? But even the heretics yield an advantage to those that make proficiency, according to the apostle’s saying, “There must also be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” 1 Corinthians 11:19 Whence, too, it is elsewhere said, “The son that receives instruction will be wise, and he uses the foolish as his servant.” For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the Catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. However, not only those who are openly separated from the church, but also all who glory in the Christian name, and at the same time lead abandoned lives, may without absurdity seem to be figured by Noah’s middle son: for the passion of Christ, which was signified by that man’s nakedness, is at once proclaimed by their profession, and dishonored by their wicked conduct. Of such, therefore, it has been said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” Matthew 7:20 And therefore was Ham cursed in his son, he being, as it were, his fruit. So, too, this son of his, Canaan, is fitly interpreted “their movement,” which is nothing else than their work. But Shem and Japheth, that is to say, the circumcision and uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, the Jews and Greeks, but called and justified, **having somehow discovered the nakedness of their father **(which signifies the Saviour’s passion), took a garment and laid it upon their backs, and entered backwards and covered their father’s nakedness, without their seeing what their reverence hid. For we both honor the passion of Christ as accomplished for us, and we hate the crime of the Jews who crucified Him. The garment signifies the sacrament, their backs the memory of things past: for the church celebrates the passion of Christ as already accomplished, and no longer to be looked forward to, now that Japheth already dwells in the habitations of Shem, and their wicked brother between them.

Sorry I’ve been away lately and unable to respond to posts until now…

I read that he did. I don’t have the source handy, but if I can locate it, I will be sure to share. I think the key here is that worship in the Catholic Church is meant to reflect heaven, not “the nakedness of the Cross.” Countless popes and saints of the Church have chimed in on this matter.

 

[Denise1957]

Here’s a short video of Pope Benedict singing the Our Father in Latin, from 2008. It’s not great sound quality, but nice nontheless.

youtube.com/watch?v=ABraXmJ94YA

 

[una_fides]

We have certain customs that are carryovers from the beginning. Much of it has been borrowed by the modern Church. Some of those are …
2. No communion rails
3. Standing for the Canon of the Mass except at the consecration
4. The priest facing the community – ad orientem to us is to face the crucifix on the altar …
6. No Gregorian chant unless you have an indult
7. The priest may never stand out from the laity or from his brothers – his actions must be very subtle and gestures are minimal – only what is absolutely necessary. Vestments are to be austere. …
11. When celebrating the mass, the friars are to be simple with few gestures such as bowing, genuflecting more than once at the beginning and at the end…

Brother JR, Respectfully, I am sincerely confused by this post and am hoping you can help clear this up for me. Are you saying that the Franciscan order has always done these things you cited “from the beginning” as in from its founding in the 1200s? If so, did it receive special indults to do so? For example, in reference to your point #11, the TLM has many more genuflections than like in the Novus Ordo, which only has two, so wouldn’t they need specific indults to do these things, and wouldn’t such drastic deviations as these and the others you listed constitute a distinct rite? If they did receive such indults, I would ask that you could please point me in a direction where I could read more about this, since I’ve never heard any of this before. Any books or websites would be most greatly appreciated, as I am genuinely curious.

I wouldn’t think that the Church permitted such deviations without special permission and even then I must be perfectly honest some of the things you listed seem to be applying to modern day Franciscans rather than how I’ve read that the Franciscans were and how they practiced in the decades and even centuries preceding Vatican II. If you look at the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, they continue the Franciscan liturgical practices and rule as it was prior to Vatican II, and to me it does not look like what you described. Please let me know if I’m missing anything here. **

marymediatrix.com/**

**tradvocations.blogspot.com/2008/05/franciscans-of-immaculate.html**The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is a Roman Catholic religious institute of pontifical rite. Their charism is founded on the spirituality of St. Maximilian Kolbe, which is both Franciscan and Marian.
Also here is information I quickly found online about the Franciscans version of the liturgy prior to Vatican II: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Order_Rites#Franciscan_Rite
This source doesn’t include any of that information you mentioned, so if you have any additional sources again I would genuinely love to read more about this.

 

[una_fides]

Before Vatican II, we had the Seraphic Missal. That form of the mass was pre-Tridentine. … Everything that is in the Tridentine mass was in that mass, but the Tridentine added the prayers at the foot of the altar, the last Gospel and the prayers to St. Michael. We did not use any of that. We began the mass pretty much as the OF begins today, with the Sign of the Cross and the communal penitential act. Our mass was always dialogue. Thee was no whispering.

I never heard any of this before. Please do not feel insulted in any way, when I request your sources of information. It is just that I have read things and my understanding is quite different, so I would really like to be able to prove these things to myself as well as for anyone else who may be curious and want to read more. When did the Franciscan Mass begin as a dialogue Mass? Are you saying this took place prior to the 1900s? I’ve read about the dialogue Mass (TLM) and they always had silent prayers. The idea was just that the people were able to make the responses along with the servers. You’re saying that since the 1200s the Franciscans have always said the words of consecration aloud, or do I misunderstand you?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass
An important intermediate development in the twentieth century liturgical reform culminating with the vernacular Mass as authorized by Vatican Council II which changed the ethos of Roman Catholic worship which until then had been characterized by quiet and stillness on the part of the congregation and henceforth by sound and movement. This desire for “active participation” in the form of Dialogue Mass rapidly led from congregations struggling to recite the Latin responses in unison during the years of its popularity in the 1950s to the quasi-universal adoption of the vernacular which culminated in the new Mass of Pope Paul VI promulgated in 1969. Since that time silent participation at Low Mass, which was the norm for at least one thousand years (circa 900 -1900), has disappeared throughout the Church and now only survives amongst certain Catholics who continue to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
Previously, before the introduction of Dialogue Mass, except at Sung Masses, the people had little active participation in the Mass other than interior disposition. This was intended to emphasize the fact that Catholics gathered together to witness and participate in an action (i.e. the sacramental renewal of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary) rather than merely participate in common prayer which was a hallmark of the Protestant Reform of the 16th century. …] Later given authorization, they allowed the laity to quietly follow the Mass (“Pray the Mass”) rather than the traditional practice of saying private prayers as the priest celebrated. The subsequent step was the people actually saying the Latin responses of the Mass called the Dialogue Mass.
In November 1922, the Holy See’s Sacred Congregation of the Council (now called the Congregation for Bishops) gave approval to the practice whereby “at least in religious houses and institutions for youth, all people assisting at the Mass make the responses at the same time with the acolytes”, a practice that it declared praiseworthy in view of the evident desire expressed in papal documents “to instil into the souls of the faithful a truly Christian and collective spirit, and prepare them for active participation.”[1]

The liturgy was never a big concern for Francis and Clare. That’s the reason that we never developed our own rite.

See here again is my confusion. If the liturgy was not a big deal to them, then how could they have come up with such drastic innovations such as a dialogue Mass wherein the priest says all the words of the liturgy out loud? I can only assume you meant that since Vatican II this has been the case? Again please understand that I am only sincerely curious. I am not calling your credibility into question. I only wish to discuss the facts and to be pointed to sources so I can verify these things for myself. I am always glad to provide sources of anything I ever post online, and if I ever post anything that is ever in any way inaccurate or misleading, I will gladly and promptly correct it. Thank you for your posts and answers, and I genuinely look forward to your clearing this up for me.

 

[una_fides]

I think it’s great to pray “written” prayers in Latin. I don’t always do it, but sometimes I do. Pater Noster instead of Our Father, things of that nature. In church I find myself substituting Latin for English for the heck of it. If it helps you get a little more out of praying, then why not? Although for regular impromptu prayer, English gets the job done.

I totally agree with you Mr Green If someone wants to make up his own prayers such as something to say in a time of distress, etc, then the vernacular could most certainly do the trick. Something I’ve found personally very uplifting is praying impromptu prayers (also known as ejaculatory prayers) at various times throughout the day. Many of them are short and didn’t take long at all for me to learn in Latin (some are in the LOH as well), and I’ve also found it helpful to pray these particular prayers when feeling something specific and just attaching internal intentions to them. One could for example even pray in Greek the Kyrie while crying out to God internally for a particular need or the agimus tibi gratias omnipotens Deus (1st part of the prayer after meals, which says “We give thanks to thee almighty God”) in Thanksgiving to God for some gift or blessing one encounters). I personally love praying the prayers of the Church, since that is how the saints have always prayed throughout history, the prayers are always completely doctrinally sound and guaranteed, and it follows our Blessed Lord’s instruction on how to pray, as he instructed the apostles specifically what to say. “When you pray say…” Pater Noster, etc. (Luk 11:2).

 

[StNicholasBB]

I am new to this forum. I am an Orthodox Christian who is looking to come in communion with Rome. I recently went to a Latin Mass for the first time a month and thought it was the most beautiful thing I have seen or heard. I enjoyed it much more than anything in the East.

 

[una_fides]

Taking this on to my last post… I just read this article about prayer and living the liturgy that talks about Pope Benedict and other interesting things: catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=47875
Here’s a relevant quote from the article about praying what we believe, the faith of the Church. There is a Latin maxim that addresses the centrality of worship in the life, identity and mission of the Catholic Church; “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi”. The phrase in Latin literally means the law of prayer (“the way we worship”), and the law of belief (“what we believe”). It is sometimes written as, “lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi”, further deepening the implications of this truth - how we worship reflects what we believe and determines how we will live.
The way we pray is the way we believe.

 

[una_fides]

I am new to this forum. I am an Orthodox Christian who is looking to come in communion with Rome. I recently went to a Latin Mass for the first time a month and thought it was the most beautiful thing I have seen or heard. I enjoyed it much more than anything in the East.

Thank you for posting and sharing your experience! We certainly welcome you to enter into full communion with the Church and come home! That’s a really neat experience that you had. I really do appreciate Eastern Catholic Rite liturgies, though I’ve only been to one so far. I like their reverence, chanting, history, etc. But I agree with you that I am am completely in love with the TLM ever since I first set foot inside and experienced my first one. The overwhelmingly solemn nature to the liturgy, the genuflections, silent prayers, incence, bells, Gregorian chant, beautiful Churches–and of course the sacred Latin–it’s as if it’s a foretaste of the world to come. I brought someone with me to the TLM once, who had maybe only been once before, though he always attended Mass regularly at his local parish. After the Mass, he told me that when he experienced the TLM he genuinely felt as if he was in heaven.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, Respectfully, I am sincerely confused by this post and am hoping you can help clear this up for me. Are you saying that the Franciscan order has always done these things you cited “from the beginning” as in from its founding in the 1200s? If so, did it receive special indults to do so?

If you look at the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, they continue the Franciscan liturgical practices and rule as it was prior to Vatican II, and to me it does not look like what you described. Please let me know if I’m missing anything here. **

I never heard any of this before. When did the Franciscan Mass begin as a dialogue Mass? Are you saying this took place prior to the 1900s? You’re saying that since the 1200s the Franciscans have always said the words of consecration aloud, or do I misunderstand you?

See here again is my confusion. If the liturgy was not a big deal to them, then how could they have come up with such drastic innovations such as a dialogue Mass wherein the priest says all the words of the liturgy out loud?**

I think that you’re getting yourself very confused, because you’re comparing the Franciscan tradition to the Tridentine Form. The Franciscans did not need any indults, because the Order predates the Tridentine Form. Remember, when something has been a tradition for several hundred years, it does not have to change. This was the case with the Franciscan way of celebrating the Roman mass. There is no document, because none was necessary.

The revisions of the mass made by the Council of Trent and later by St. Pius V were 300 years after the founding of the mendicants and more than 1000 after the monks. This was the reason that the Dominicans, Carmelites, and Carthusians were allowed to keep their own rites. The Servites, Benedictines and Franciscans kept their customs. They were old.

What you have in the citation above is what I already explained. It speaks about the seraphic missal and the different calendar. If you observe, the article also said that they did certain things in the parish church that were different from the conventual mass. This usually depended on the bishop.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate do not celebrate the Franciscan Form. They celebrate the Tridentine Form with the Franciscan calendar. They’re not to be confused. The Franciscan form was only found in the Seraphic Missal. The Seraphic Missal has not been published since the 1960s when Pope Paul VI abrogated it. That would be the place where you would find the rubrics of which I’m speaking about, not in the missal used by the Franciscans of the Immaculate. We all do that. We all celebrate the EF with the Franciscan calendar. They celebrate it more often than the rest of us. We also celebrate the OF with the Franciscan calendar. The readings and prayers are going to be different for the Franciscan holy days, that’s all. But it’s the same form as the rest of the Church, with some very minor details that are typically Franciscan, such as the confetior and the Franciscan saints in the Canon.

At the time of St. Francis, until the early 1960s, the Franciscans celebrated the mass in dialogue form. The consecration was very reverently and in a low voice, but loudly enough to be heard by the community. In later years, they would use microphones. Here is a picture of Padre Pio celebrating the Seraphic Mass. Observe the microphone and observe that he’s facing the camera. Which was easy to do, because of the space between the altar and the back wall that allowed the friars to stand around him. He never celebrated the revised mass.

View attachment 15182

You must not lose sight of the fact that we’re not a community of priests. We’re a community of brothers. You’re focusing on the mass, while the Franciscans focus on the fraternity. The mass is the sacrifice of the fraternity, not of one single friar. The way that we define our priests is as this, “a brother, like any other brother, with no special privileges and no special place in the community, except to serve his brothers through his priestly ministry.”

Our chapels were built to emphasize the community. The altar was about three feet from the wall. The Blessed Sacrament was on a pedestal behind the altar. The brothers either sat or stood around the altar. In larger houses, they had stalls that were built to the sides of the altar. You were looking at the mass from the side, not facing in the same direction as the celebrant. In smaller chapels, there were no stalls, just an open space in the front.

Years later, when these chapels passed into the hands of dioceses and were open to the laity, some bishops asked that they be adapted to fit in with the rest of the diocesan churches and chapels, but not all. There are some that still maintain the original simplicity without too much furniture, railings, kneelers and so forth.

The reason for standing during the canon was so as not to let the ordained friar stand out. This way, he blended with his other brothers who were not ordained. If there were more than one priest in the house, only one could celebrate mass each day. That’s how seriously the Franciscans took the idea of making the priest as anonymous as possible.

When the Tridentine form was adopted, it was never imposed on the old orders. To the best of my knowledge, the first time that everyone adopted one set of rubrics was at Vatican II with the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI. Indults are not needed when a tradition is well established, that’s still in the code of Canon Law. Unless that tradition is abrogated by the law or the pope, it may continue as usual.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ConstantineTG]

It actually makes sense when you think about the nature of merit and good works.

First, if you want to read up completely on the subject, here is a lengthy article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject: newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

It explains for example about how prayer is a form of penance:
…since, in the present state of fallen nature, there neither is nor can be a meritorious work which in one way or another has not connected with it difficulties and hardships, theologians unanimously teach that all our meritorious works without exception bear a penal character and thereby may become automatically works of satisfaction. Against how many difficulties and distractions have we not to contend even during our prayers, which by right should be the easiest of all good works! Thus, prayer also becomes a penance, and hence confessors may in most cases content themselves with imposing prayer as a penance.
I was given once for a penance to begin to read a book about a saint so that I can learn about his / her life ultimately in order to please God. If laboring to read a book is a form of penance, then I think it’s easy enough to also see that if one learns Latin with the intention of doing so in order to be able to pray in that sacred language and therefore please God and unite himself with the pope, etc then obviously one can view that as a form of a good work one is doing for God and also as a form of penance. Thus, when one is laboring away and studying Latin in order to learn how to pray in the Church’s language and read Church documents, he is doing something that is therefore pleasing to God and consequently is doing something good for his soul in the process. Again this would be a labor of love for God. If he were to do it strictly for an academic purpose, then obviously that would be entirely different. Obviously if one were a Greek Catholic and wanted to study Greek for similar purposes such as to be able to pray better in a Greek liturgy or to be able to read and study Scripture in the original language and thereby better understand God’s Word for example there would be merit in doing so as well. Hope this helps clear up any confusion by putting that wording it in a more complete context.

I am not doubting prayer. I am doubting that Latin has anything to do about it. In the Eastern praxis, prayer is approached in a completely different and profound way. So much so that the direction is more to uniformity, using prayers written by saints, monks and Fathers of the Church over “create your own” as the effect of theologically sound prayers have a profound effect on one’s spirituality. But language has nothing to do with it. The strength of a prayer is in the prayer itself, not the language it is used. In fact, the language used has no effect on a prayer. Saying the “name and claim” prayer in Latin doesn’t make that prayer legit.

 

[Melchior_1]

I think that you’re getting yourself very confused, because you’re comparing the Franciscan tradition to the Tridentine Form. The Franciscans did not need any indults, because the Order predates the Tridentine Form. Remember, when something has been a tradition for several hundred years, it does not have to change. This was the case with the Franciscan way of celebrating the Roman mass. There is no document, because none was necessary.

The revisions of the mass made by the Council of Trent and later by St. Pius V were 300 years after the founding of the mendicants and more than 1000 after the monks. This was the reason that the Dominicans, Carmelites, and Carthusians were allowed to keep their own rites. The Servites, Benedictines and Franciscans kept their customs. They were old.

…

The Franciscans of the Immaculate do not celebrate the Franciscan Form. They celebrate the Tridentine Form with the Franciscan calendar. They’re not to be confused. The Franciscan form was only found in the Seraphic Missal. The Seraphic Missal has not been published since the 1960s when Pope Paul VI abrogated it. That would be the place where you would find the rubrics of which I’m speaking about, not in the missal used by the Franciscans of the Immaculate. We all do that. We all celebrate the EF with the Franciscan calendar. They celebrate it more often than the rest of us. We also celebrate the OF with the Franciscan calendar. The readings and prayers are going to be different for the Franciscan holy days, that’s all. But it’s the same form as the rest of the Church, with some very minor details that are typically Franciscan, such as the confetior and the Franciscan saints in the Canon.

At the time of St. Francis, until the early 1960s, the Franciscans celebrated the mass in dialogue form. The consecration was very reverently and in a low voice, but loudly enough to be heard by the community. In later years, they would use microphones. Here is a picture of Padre Pio celebrating the Seraphic Mass. Observe the microphone and observe that he’s facing the camera. Which was easy to do, because of the space between the altar and the back wall that allowed the friars to stand around him. He never celebrated the revised mass.

View attachment 15182

You must not lose sight of the fact that we’re not a community of priests. We’re a community of brothers. You’re focusing on the mass, while the Franciscans focus on the fraternity. The mass is the sacrifice of the fraternity, not of one single friar. The way that we define our priests is as this, “a brother, like any other brother, with no special privileges and no special place in the community, except to serve his brothers through his priestly ministry.”

Our chapels were built to emphasize the community. The altar was about three feet from the wall. The Blessed Sacrament was on a pedestal behind the altar. The brothers either sat or stood around the altar. In larger houses, they had stalls that were built to the sides of the altar. You were looking at the mass from the side, not facing in the same direction as the celebrant. In smaller chapels, there were no stalls, just an open space in the front.

Years later, when these chapels passed into the hands of dioceses and were open to the laity, some bishops asked that they be adapted to fit in with the rest of the diocesan churches and chapels, but not all. There are some that still maintain the original simplicity without too much furniture, railings, kneelers and so forth.

The reason for standing during the canon was so as not to let the ordained friar stand out. This way, he blended with his other brothers who were not ordained. If there were more than one priest in the house, only one could celebrate mass each day. That’s how seriously the Franciscans took the idea of making the priest as anonymous as possible.

When the Tridentine form was adopted, it was never imposed on the old orders. To the best of my knowledge, the first time that everyone adopted one set of rubrics was at Vatican II with the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI. Indults are not needed when a tradition is well established, that’s still in the code of Canon Law. Unless that tradition is abrogated by the law or the pope, it may continue as usual.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I love reading about this stuff. I think what trips people up, and I mentioned this to you before, is that there’s not a lot of info about the Seraphic Missal and early Franciscan practices online. Probably because;

1. It hasn’t been used in forty plus years.
2. It got abolished before the rise of the interwebs.
3. People in general aren’t interested in learning about it.

I mean, I tried researching “Mass of St. Peter” on Google and the search results gave me 4338383838903929 hits on parishes named St. Peter, but none on the Mass you described in another post.

For some, what you’re talking about is difficult to understand because this is a radical departure from their perception of Roman Catholicism. The lack of information online, especially in the digital age, is difficult for some to swallow. For others like myself, reading about this brings a strong desire to learn more about Franciscan practices and traditions, so we can better understand the mindset and spirituality of our Brothers & Sisters who came before us.

As always, thank you for sharing details on the historical aspects of the Order. I’m seriously excited to read that book on the history of the order (I think my in-laws are shipping it up here as we speak!

Maybe after I’m done reading it I’ll annotate some of it and put it online, so there’s some accurate information out there on Franciscan practices from the time of the foundation of the Order.