Praying in Latin

[ProVobis]

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.

Br JR, just out of curiosity, do you have handmissals available for all the different forms you celebrate Mass in? And in the different languages? Pew cards? Missalettes? Or is everyone supposed to have it all memorized? Just asking.

 

[JReducation]

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.

What you say is entirely true. This is not something interests many people, not even Franciscans. It’s a small point to all of us; therefore, no great works have been written about it. As I said, part of it had to do with the way that the Franciscan family has always approached the priesthood. There has always been a great love and respect for the priesthood, especially for secular priests. However, when it came to the priests in our own family, our attitude was always much more fraternal than filial. A Franciscan does not look to his ordained brother as a spiritual father of any kind. Only Francis and his successors are spiritual fathers, not the priests in the order, not to the members of the order.

In his Letter to the Clerics, Francis inspires them to be good and holy men and moves quickly into the devotion and care of the Eucharist. He was not a priest, but he writes to the priests of the order, not as a spiritual son, but as their father.

When one looks at Franciscan liturgical tradition, the tradition was shaped by the relationship between the friars, remembering the the brother-priests were a minority and even today, when they are 60% of the order, they are still not looked on as someone who is special. The community sees the brother-priest while celebrating the sacraments as one who serves his brothers. It’s the same mass, but the perspective is from the top down. The priest is the servant and the brothers are being served. The Traditionalist thinking is the other way around, from the bottom up. The priest is leading and the congregation is following. If one can understand this relationship, then the rituals at mass make sense.

We must remember that in 1209, when the order is founded there were two things missing that come into use much later.

The first is structured rubrics. There were many forms of the mass. The mass that the friars used were taken from a missal called The Mass of St. Peter. It was a very little known missal and still is. Francis did not like the missal being used in his diocese. He asked Pope Innocent for a simpler missal, one with less volumes. The was an old copy of this missal that the pope gave to Francis. From the little that we do know, it was called the Mass of St. Peter, because it was used only on the feast of Peter and Paul and rare occasions. However, it seems to have been very old. It was not created just for Francis. The Franciscans made it popular. So rubrics were not as clearly defined then. Abbots and superiors made the rubrics for their houses as they went along.

The second thing that was not present was the Tridentine Form. It is believed that by the time of the Council of Trent, this mass celebrated by the Franciscans had become so popular that the Council tweaked it by adding things such as chant, more formality to it and more prayers. Later St. Pius V would do more tweaking and it became the mass for the Latin Church.

 

[JReducation]

In reality the customs of the old orders did not deviate from anything. These customs existed long before the Tridentine Form. The Church allowed them to remain in place.

There are probably two reasons for that.

We know for sure that Trent issued a canon that male religious of certain orders are exempt religious. This means that no bishop or layman may touch us, govern us, refuse to maintain us, discipline us, correct us or enter our houses without permission. This remains in place to this day. Only the pope can overrule our superiors. The exemption is not given to the order, but to the individual members of the order, so that it goes with us where ever we go. The bishops had nothing to say about our liturgical customs as long as they were not the parish liturgy. Most bishops did not really bother with that either until much later.

The other reason for not imposing the Tridentine Form on Franciscans and other old orders may be two-fold. There is common practice in Church law that if something is old, you can leave it alone. This is still law today. It’s really up to the pope to say that the changes apply to those individuals and orders that are old. The something has to be connected to persons. People may ask, “Why was the Tridentine form not left alone, since it too is old?” The Tridentine form is not a religious order or the practice of a religious order. The law has always been applied to religious. The second half of that reason may well be that the Franciscans were a force to be contended with. By the time that Trent comes around, we had become the largest and most powerful religious order in the Church. St. Pius was a Dominican. There is a statute written by St. Dominic that the Dominicans shall never find fault with the Franciscans, shall always revere every Franciscan, shall serve the Franciscans, shall receive the Franciscans in their houses and shall protect them from the outside world (including laity and bishops). This is still in their statutes. A Dominican pope, who was a saint, was not going to turn on the Franciscans, especially when he was allowing his order to keep its rite.

This was not a matter of granting indults. You can’t grant an indult from something that has not yet been born. The Tridentine Mass is 300 years younger than the Franciscans. This was a matter of not meddling with what was old. There would be no paper trail other than the actual missal and the rubrics written into the missal by the General Ministers.

Like all things, those rubrics changed over the centuries. Some superiors general were more monastic and made them more formal. Other superiors general were more traditional and made them more informal. Remember that in our Franciscan world, tradition is informality, unlike your traditionalist world today where formality is the rule of the day. We have inverted traditions here.

This takes us back to the whole Latin question. Do Franciscans pray in Latin? Yes.

Must Franciscans pray in Latin? No.

Why not?

Because Francis introduced praying in the vernacular. From its early days the order used Latin and the local languages. Most of the prayers that Francis wrote were in French or Italian. He wrote very few in Latin. His most famous prayer, the Canticle of the Creatures, is in Italian. It’s considered the first piece of Italian literature.

Here again, we have a matter of an old tradition. For 800 years, we have used both Latin and the dominant language. Today, Latin is no longer the official language of the Franciscan family. If I were to say that there is a dominant language, not official, it would be Spanish or English. They’re neck and neck. We no longer consider ourselves to be an Italian religious family, even though our roots are in Italy. We have very few Italian customs. We have more German and Spanish customs.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ljsedivy]

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.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is my signature line in my emails and where my heart has been set on fire the past few years. I have studied the liturgy intensely in this area and is the reason why we started attending the Latin mass. it is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.

In this year of faith, let us take our direction from the Holy Father!!!

 

[Elisabeth51]

I love praying in Latin, I learned it in school and continued to study at university level. I was SO happy when they did the corrected translation, the sheer annoyance of having to say the Gloria in English the way it was when I knew that was not the correct translation is finally at an end I have a friend at church who never studied Latin formally, but he got a copy of Wheelock’s Latin in college taught himself and he can do quite well translating, I’ve sat with him with an old Sacramentary and only had to correct him or give him a meaning a few times.

It’s a beautiful language and I teach a little to my CCD kids–showing them the relation to English words when it comes up and I strongly encourage the altar servers to learn both the Latin & English prayers.

 

[OraLabora]

I love praying in Latin, I learned it in school and continued to study at university level. I was SO happy when they did the corrected translation, the sheer annoyance of having to say the Gloria in English the way it was when I knew that was not the correct translation is finally at an end I have a friend at church who never studied Latin formally, but he got a copy of Wheelock’s Latin in college taught himself and he can do quite well translating, I’ve sat with him with an old Sacramentary and only had to correct him or give him a meaning a few times.

It’s a beautiful language and I teach a little to my CCD kids–showing them the relation to English words when it comes up and I strongly encourage the altar servers to learn both the Latin & English prayers.

I generally chant the LOTH in Latin, Lauds and Vespers every day, the minor hours when I work from home, and Compline often as well. Since my mother tongue is French, I can usually get the general idea of what I’m praying. However my practice is to chant the psalm in Latin in the proper mode for the Latin antiphon which I also chant, and then read through the psalm silently in French.

I use a Latin-French antiphonary for the current LOTH (“Les Heures Grégoriennes”), it contains all the diurnal hours. The Office of Readings I simply chant recto-tono in French.

 

[Elisabeth51]

I generally chant the LOTH in Latin, Lauds and Vespers every day, the minor hours when I work from home, and Compline often as well. Since my mother tongue is French, I can usually get the general idea of what I’m praying. However my practice is to chant the psalm in Latin in the proper mode for the Latin antiphon which I also chant, and then read through the psalm silently in French.

I use a Latin-French antiphonary for the current LOTH (“Les Heures Grégoriennes”), it contains all the diurnal hours. The Office of Readings I simply chant recto-tono in French.

WOW! I’ll have to look that up, I studied French as well, have not been in a position to maintain my spoken French, but I can still read fluently. I find both get me through understanding some of the Spanish I hear frequently here in California, I can usually at least get the point of what is being asked.

 

[JReducation]

I’m so glad that I’m Franciscan. God truly knows what he’s doing. If I were anything else, that would mean that I’d be noticing how a mass is being celebrated, who is doing what or not doing it. I’d be thinking about what language to use. I’d be trying to learn to chant . . . with my voice, they’d never let me into heaven.

Franciscans, on the other hand, thrive in diversity. We have one very simple rule of life with 12 pages. Anything that Francis did not put in there, we are free to create our own statutes. If there are at least four who can’t agree with those statutes, they can be separated into a different obedience with their own government and become an autonomous Franciscan community. No one is offended and no one worries about it.

If something happens in California, the brethren in NY are only interested if they can help. If they can, they do so. If they cannot help, they move on to whatever is before them and let the folks in California figure it out on their own or find someone else to help. God will always provide.

Someone walks in and says, “The breviaries in the closet are in English or Latin”

“OK, we can do this. It’s not a big deal. God doesn’t use language anyway. Just put your heart into it.”

If I were anything other than Franciscan, I don’t think I could make it without being stressed all the time. I don’t have what it takes for the little details.

Give me an assignment and I can be quite detailed. Give me prayer and liturgy and I’m a big picture person. I immediately switch over to right brain. :yup:

Francis was very right brained. This is the perfect family for me. You can be either or.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Francis was very right brained. This is the perfect family for me. You can be either or.

Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Seriously though, I think about a year or so ago, my pastor explained how the right and left brain works. In fact I started a thread on it but it didn’t go very well here.

 

[JReducation]

Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Seriously though, I think about a year or so ago, my pastor explained how the right and left brain works. In fact I started a thread on it but it didn’t go very well here.

Many people don’t understand the hemepheric preference concept.

Seriously, some of our most accomplished saints were right brained. They were big picture people, not into details.

St. Francis of Assisi

St. Theresa of Avila

St. Vincent de Paul

St. Eugene de Mazenot

Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta

They accomplished great projects in the most disorderly fashion, but it worked. These are the kind of people that would drive the Sholastics to drink.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[IbnFiktur]

This thread is still going?!

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Yes, yes it is.

[Inhales deeply …]

Now, about the abrogation of the Ordinary Form …

 

[acarlson]

Yes, yes it is.

[Inhales deeply …]

Now, about the abrogation of the Ordinary Form …

Many people don’t understand the hemepheric preference concept.

Seriously, some of our most accomplished saints were right brained. They were big picture people, not into details.

St. Francis of Assisi

St. Theresa of Avila

St. Vincent de Paul

St. Eugene de Mazenot

Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta

They accomplished great projects in the most disorderly fashion, but it worked. These are the kind of people that would drive the Sholastics to drink.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

It’s amazing how God is able to make such beautiful results through our own sometimes massive faults as long as we’re trying our hardest to do His will. To tie it back to the topic, it’s as how the best prayers, regardless of language, are said from the heart and with sincerity,

 

[una_fides]

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.

I can understand that in the eastern tradition the prayer itself has the effect, and I agree with you that the particular prayer produces a particular effect. In the western tradition both the prayer and the language of the Church (Latin) can produce their own unique and distinct effects, since the Latin language has certain special benefits, as evidenced from the authoritative writings from many popes. If a particular eastern Chuch had a particular tradition that countless patriarchs of that Church said were beneficial, I would not have a problem with it nor would I ever go as far as to disagree with them–unless it was somehow contrary to authoritative Church teaching, which I doubt would ever be the case–since I would respect them and their own tradition. Here we have numerous vicars of Christ, the head not only of the western Church and the head of the western tradition, but also the head of the universal Church, saying that the Latin language is sacred and special and has many benefits to those who desire to pray in that language. As a matter of mutual respect, I think accepting what they say as final should be sufficient.

I also agree that just because a prayer is in Latin doesn’t make it “legit,” but I if someone does pray a “legit” prayer, a prayer of the Church, in Latin, then the fact it is in Latin does have the ability to produce a particular effect (benefit) for that individual, such as uniting him with the papacy, western tradition, among other benefits that popes have elaborated on.

 

[una_fides]

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.

Actually the confusion has resulted because of the following facts. The evidence I have that both you said and that I’ve found online says that the Franciscans did not care much about the liturgy and that they simply followed the Roman Rite of Mass and did not have their own disctinct rite, as the Domincans and others did (and still do have today).

The Franciscans, unlike the Dominicans, Carmelites and other orders, have never had a peculiar rite properly so called, but conformably to the mind of St. Francis of Assisi always followed the Roman Rite for the celebration of Mass. However, the Friars Minor and the Capuchins wear the amice, instead of the biretta, over the head, and are accustomed to say Mass with their feet uncovered, save only by sandals. They also enjoy certain privileges in regard to the time and place of celebrating Mass, and the Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains many proper Masses not found in the Roman Missal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Order_Rites#Franciscan_Rite

While the Franciscan “order” may predate the “Tridentine” liturgy as was formalized at Trent, the order itself does not predate the Roman Rite itself since it at least dates back in the same essential form to the time of Pope St Gregory the Great (6th century). This is why Pope Benedict referred to it as the “Gregorian Mass” rather than the “Tridentine.” In addition, the Franciscan order is not a Franciscan Rite. What does not make sense is that if you look at every single distinct western Rite liturgy, the liturgy looks almost identical to the Tridentine Mass with only some minor differences such as in the Domincan Rite they lay prostrate to receive Communion and a few different prayers and priestly gestures. What you are proposing is that the Franciscans did not have a distinct rite but instead followed the Roman Mass but with many drastic diffferences that would have most certainly set it apart as its own distinct rite. Again if you can provide any documentation supporting your claims about them offering a dialogue mass since the 1200s, and the many other claims, then that would certainly make these claims more believable, but since none have been provided then the actual evidence that has been provided states that the only differences were the missal, saints, sandals, but nothing about drastic liturgical differences.

Lastly, the Franciscans of the Immaculate claim are following the primitive Franciscan practice. This is from their website:

Thus do we love to formulate the manner of Franciscan life of a Casa Mariana (or Marian Friary), in which observance prevails of the Rule and Constitutions according to the model of primitive Franciscan communities and after the recent example offered us by St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe.

It is the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, who guided us along this course with his inspired and enlightened word. It is he who recommended that we be completely faithful to the Holy Rule of our father St. Francis according to the spirit and the letter: “Do not relax the spirit of the ancient Rule nor contradict the letter of it.” It is he who urged “the faithful, continued embodiment of the example and teaching of our Seraphic Father” as we see it in St. Maximilian’s life.
marymediatrix.com/religious-life/friars.html

Again any sources you can provide would be appreciated.

 

[JReducation]

I can understand that in the eastern tradition the prayer itself has the effect, and I agree with you that the particular prayer produces a particular effect. In the western tradition both the prayer and the language of the Church (Latin) can produce their own unique and distinct effects, since the Latin language has certain special benefits, as evidenced from the authoritative writings from many popes.

I agree with what your saying about the place of Latin in the life of the Latin Church, but I have to offer one change in your post. The use of the term “authoritative writings” can confuse here. We, clergy and religious, refer to these writings as “official” or “formal”. The term authoritative is one that refers to doctrine, morals, or law. In those circumstances the pope is writing from a position of authority. Summorum Pontificum is an excellent example of an authoritative papal statement. There was no room for dialogue or disagreement. It was a mandate. Evangelium Vitae is authoritative. The Holy Father’s position on the sacredness of life is not up for discussion. Writings on Latin would be authoritative, if the Holy Father wrote something like, “Every priest has the right to celebrate mass in Latin, etc etc” He’s making law. If he said, “Beginning the first Sunday of Advent, these parts of the mass are to be said in Latin, because . . .” This is authoritative. There is no room for discussion here. the topic is closed.

These other documents on Latin are authoritative in the sense that they come from a person in authority, they are written by men who know their subject so they are authorities on the matter, but if one reads closely, they are not commanding or prohibiting anything. They are simply making a formal statement about the use of Latin. To keep people from getting confused, it’s better to present them as what they are formal papal statements on the use of Latin. Informal would be when he’s thinking off the top of his head and makes a spontaneous statement to a question about Latin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[una_fides]

I agree with what your saying about the place of Latin in the life of the Latin Church, but I have to offer one change in your post. The use of the term “authoritative writings” can confuse here. We, clergy and religious, refer to these writings as “official” or “formal”. The term authoritative is one that refers to doctrine, morals, or law. In those circumstances the pope is writing from a position of authority. Summorum Pontificum is an excellent example of an authoritative papal statement. There was no room for dialogue or disagreement. It was a mandate. Evangelium Vitae is authoritative. The Holy Father’s position on the sacredness of life is not up for discussion. Writings on Latin would be authoritative, if the Holy Father wrote something like, “Every priest has the right to celebrate mass in Latin, etc etc” He’s making law. If he said, “Beginning the first Sunday of Advent, these parts of the mass are to be said in Latin, because . . .” This is authoritative. There is no room for discussion here. the topic is closed.

These other documents on Latin are authoritative in the sense that they come from a person in authority, they are written by men who know their subject so they are authorities on the matter, but if one reads closely, they are not commanding or prohibiting anything. They are simply making a formal statement about the use of Latin. To keep people from getting confused, it’s better to present them as what they are formal papal statements on the use of Latin. Informal would be when he’s thinking off the top of his head and makes a spontaneous statement to a question about Latin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The word authoritative was used for a particular reason. The referenced teachings are contained in encyclicals and an apostolic constitution and therefore according to Church teaching they are not up for discussion. They are not mere private opinion, and we therefore are not free to disagree.

 

[JReducation]

Actually the confusion has resulted because of the following facts. The evidence I have that both you said and that I’ve found online says that the Franciscans did not care much about the liturgy and that they simply followed the Roman Rite of Mass and did not have their own disctinct rite, as the Domincans and others did (and still do have today).

The Franciscans, unlike the Dominicans, Carmelites and other orders, have never had a peculiar rite properly so called, but conformably to the mind of St. Francis of Assisi always followed the Roman Rite for the celebration of Mass. However, the Friars Minor and the Capuchins wear the amice, instead of the biretta, over the head, and are accustomed to say Mass with their feet uncovered, save only by sandals. They also enjoy certain privileges in regard to the time and place of celebrating Mass, and the Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains many proper Masses not found in the Roman Missal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Order_Rites#Franciscan_Rite

While the Franciscan “order” may predate the “Tridentine” liturgy as was formalized at Trent, the order itself does not predate the Roman Rite itself since it at least dates back in the same essential form to the time of Pope St Gregory the Great (6th century). This is why Pope Benedict referred to it as the “Gregorian Mass” rather than the “Tridentine.” In addition, the Franciscan order is not a Franciscan Rite. What does not make sense is that if you look at every single distinct western Rite liturgy, the liturgy looks almost identical to the Tridentine Mass with only some minor differences such as in the Domincan Rite they lay prostrate to receive Communion and a few different prayers and priestly gestures. What you are proposing is that the Franciscans did not have a distinct rite but instead followed the Roman Mass but with many drastic diffferences that would have most certainly set it apart as its own distinct rite. Again if you can provide any documentation supporting your claims about them offering a dialogue mass since the 1200s, and the many other claims, then that would certainly make these claims more believable, but since none have been provided then the actual evidence that has been provided states that the only differences were the missal, saints, sandals, but nothing about drastic liturgical differences.

Lastly, the Franciscans of the Immaculate claim are following the primitive Franciscan practice. This is from their website:

Thus do we love to formulate the manner of Franciscan life of a Casa Mariana (or Marian Friary), in which observance prevails of the Rule and Constitutions according to the model of primitive Franciscan communities and after the recent example offered us by St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe.

It is the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, who guided us along this course with his inspired and enlightened word. It is he who recommended that we be completely faithful to the Holy Rule of our father St. Francis according to the spirit and the letter: “Do not relax the spirit of the ancient Rule nor contradict the letter of it.” It is he who urged “the faithful, continued embodiment of the example and teaching of our Seraphic Father” as we see it in St. Maximilian’s life.
marymediatrix.com/religious-life/friars.html

Again any sources you can provide would be appreciated.

We’re talking past each other. I’m talking about the Tridentine form. Not the Roman Rite. We all know that the Franciscans have always followed the Roman Rite. They did not follow the Tridentine form, since it did not exist in the 13th century.

If you examine the words of the FI very carefully, they do not make any claims about the liturgy. They are speaking about our way of life as prescribed in the rule and lived by the first generation friars.

The mass that the friars had came from a missal given to them by Pope Innocent III. It was a Roman Rite, but it was a form that was rarely used. According to historians, they believe it may have been used once or twice a year. If you read A History of the Franciscan Order by Moorman, you will find references to this missal. All of the rubrics that we know today, came long after the founding of the Franciscan order.

To have a complete picture of what happened, one would have to read different letters, journals, history books that make fleeting references to the mass and to look at the history of the friaries themselves. There is no single volume on the Franciscans and liturgy, because this is not what Franciscans are known for. Whereas, one would find hundreds of books on the Benedictine tradition and liturgy. This is their forte.

Someone else asked me if there was a book on Franciscans and liturgy. I told them the same thing. I don’t think so, because it’s not a particularly interesting story to anyone, not even to Franciscans. All of the books that I have read on Franciscans and liturgy are really about the theology of the mass, not the rubrics. What we know has been handed down to us by little pieces of information here and there that novice masters gather over the centuries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

The word authoritative was used for a particular reason. The referenced teachings are contained in encyclicals and an apostolic constitution and therefore according to Church teaching they are not up for discussion. They are not mere private opinion, and we therefore are not free to disagree.

Even when something is part of an encyclical or an apostolic constitution, it need not be authoritative, unless it is written with that intent. We know for a fact, from our studies of Church history that many of these documents have both authoritative content and commentaries. The authoritative content is not up for discussion. The commentaries within the document can be discussed freely.

For example, in Evangelium Vitae, Bl. John Paul said that abortion in always gravely sinful, without any exceptions. That’s authoritative. He also said that capital punishment should be abolished, because in today’s world there is rarely a need to use it. That is not authoritative. That’s a commentary. Both are in the same encyclical. Do you see how an encyclical can contain both?

The problem with the Latin issue is that many Traditionalists are trying to push Latin by claiming that it’s a Church law that Latin must be used. That’s not true. That’s not what the law says. The law says that Latin is the official language of the Latin Church and that it has a place of primacy. When canonists read this, they don’t see anything that implies that not using Latin is a violation of law, morals or doctrine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

When canonists read this, they don’t see anything that implies that not using Latin is a violation of law, morals or doctrine.

Br JR, how do the canonists get around Canon 249? Isn’t there an implication that Latin is to be used? Otherwise why become skilled in it?