P
ProVobis
Guest
Like learning Latin or being a Cub fan, it builds character.
- Status
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
The summers are to die for.Like learning Latin or being a Cub fan, it builds character.
P
pnewton
Guest
I will meet you half way and eat both. I could never live where the shrimp weren’t fresh and the Tex-Mex wasn’t more Texan than Mexan. I grew up here and am the last son living here with my aging mother. In a word, I am stuck.
I will try and smile more. Does this count?
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
It’s a start but you might try this:I will meet you half way and eat both. I could never live where the shrimp weren’t fresh and the Tex-Mex wasn’t more Texan than Mexan. I grew up here and am the last son living here with my aging mother. In a word, I am stuck.
I will try and smile more. Does this count?
C
CappaMagna
Guest
The EF Mass was recently celebrated at St. Pete’s and it was celebrated versus populum!
Further ad orientum is not “preferred” for the OF Mass.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\This may sound like a dumb question, but since I’m not a medical historian, I’ll take my chances. Did they know about gout in the 1200s?\
**I DO have gout, and it’s no fun.
Yes, they knew about gout, but they didn’t know what caused it.
Gout is caused by the body’s not making the enzyme to get rid of excess uric acid, which is a normal by-product of metabolism.
Instead of going into the blood, to be filtered out by the kidneys, and excreted in urine, the uric acid crystallizes in inappropriate places–usually the extremities: big toes, thumbs, even ear lobes, though it may attack other joints. Kidney stones are made of uric acid.
Certain foods (peas, legumes, seafood, and organ meats) are high in purines, which make lots of uric acid.
Between the change of seasons and usual Lenten diet, I used to have major flareups of gout during Lent.
Since moving to the sunny southwest, where it’s warm and dry most of the time, between the climate and allopurinol (the artificial form of the enzyme the body needs to expel uric acid), for the most part, I’ve been spared attacks.
Oddly enough, when Moses anointed Aaron and his sons to be priests of the children of Israel, they were anointed on their big toes, thumbs, and ear lobes–same places gout usually attacks. Coincidence?
There’s an obscure saint: St. Julian the Gout Sufferer, 27 February. He was so crippled from it he could neither stand nor walk. He was brought on a stretcher to his trial for being a Christian, and martyred by being burned on a pyre in Alexandria during the reign of the Emperor Decius.**
**I DO have gout, and it’s no fun.
Yes, they knew about gout, but they didn’t know what caused it.
Gout is caused by the body’s not making the enzyme to get rid of excess uric acid, which is a normal by-product of metabolism.
Instead of going into the blood, to be filtered out by the kidneys, and excreted in urine, the uric acid crystallizes in inappropriate places–usually the extremities: big toes, thumbs, even ear lobes, though it may attack other joints. Kidney stones are made of uric acid.
Certain foods (peas, legumes, seafood, and organ meats) are high in purines, which make lots of uric acid.
Between the change of seasons and usual Lenten diet, I used to have major flareups of gout during Lent.
Since moving to the sunny southwest, where it’s warm and dry most of the time, between the climate and allopurinol (the artificial form of the enzyme the body needs to expel uric acid), for the most part, I’ve been spared attacks.
Oddly enough, when Moses anointed Aaron and his sons to be priests of the children of Israel, they were anointed on their big toes, thumbs, and ear lobes–same places gout usually attacks. Coincidence?
There’s an obscure saint: St. Julian the Gout Sufferer, 27 February. He was so crippled from it he could neither stand nor walk. He was brought on a stretcher to his trial for being a Christian, and martyred by being burned on a pyre in Alexandria during the reign of the Emperor Decius.**
P
ProVobis
Guest
Forget facing east. The whole idea behind the the versus populum Mass is so that people can hear the priest better. Not easily done with his back towards you. Our society doesn’t like people turning their backs on you and then speaking. I really don’t think we should read too much into this. Since Vatican II and the introduction of vernacular, the Mass has become more secularized and it seems that in some parishes the altar/table is placed in the middle of the church so that you can see it from all sides. Is this really a problem?
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
I moved away from he great State of Texas about 11 years ago and have been itching to get back every since. Where I live now is nice (very peaceful), but its just not the same. Maybe when I’m driving “home” on vacation you’ll catch me speeding on 59 and we’ll get to meet. You are somewhere off 59, right?
J
JReducation
Guest
The idea of the altar in the middle of the sanctuary is a recovery of a very old monastic custom. In the Cluniac Reform the altar was moved away from the wall to the center of the sanctuary and there was no pulpit. They placed a podium in the center aisle of the monastic church, but at the opposite end. Since the monks faced each other, it made no difference, because you were always looking at either the altar or the lectern from sideways. The reason for moving the altar was to establish balance in the architecture. The distance betweent the altar and the wall and the distance between the lectern and the opposite wall was exactly the same. The Cluniac reform was an attempt to restore balance to monastic life. The liturgy had to reflect the balance that the monks saught.
The Cluniac Reform also took out the railings and the statues from the monastic church and forbade the painting of walls with frescos and othe religious images. It is the Cluniac reform that the Augustinians of Luther’s time followed. This was the “inspiration” for early Lutheran churches. The Cluniac design is still observed in Franciscan and Cistercian houses. If I’m ot misaken, it is also observed by the Carthusians, even though they are neither monk nor friar. The iidea is to have a whitewashed chapel, with no saints, no religious symbols except a cross or crucifix, an altar in the middle of the sanctuary and a lectern. The only thing that the Franciscans added was the tabernacle in the center of the front wall. This caught on where ever the Franciscans went. In the Cluniac reform the tabernacle was not in the church. It was in a side chapel or if the monastery was small, they would have a nitche on a side wall. They still have it this way today.
The Francisan chapels have both, either center or side, but it must be on the sanctuary, that’s the only difference. That only applies to the friars’, not to the laity and to the nuns.
The idea of being able to see what is going on at the altar is a very old monastic idea dating back almost 900 years. This privilege was never granted to the laity, because the churches of the laity were often invaded by warring factions. The altar and tabernacle were placed in the safest part of the Church and the priest was to stand between the sacrament and any intruder. This is why it was so easy to sneak up on Becket and kill him. He was in the most vulnerable spot, in the front, with his back to the cathedral. At least this is the way that some historians explain why Becket was so easily ambushed and killed. I’m not sure how accurate that is.
Have an enjoyable New Year’s Eve with familly and friends and many blessings upon you for 2010.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\it seems that in some parishes the altar/table is placed in the middle of the church so that you can see it from all sides.\
**In the Byzantine tradition, the Altar (properly, Holy Table) is always free standing in the midst of the Sanctuary (proerly, Altar).
As far as seeing what the Priest is doing, except for pointing and making the sign of the Cross a few times, can anyone, except perhaps a very great mystic, REALLY see the really important thing that happens: the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?
St. Theophilus, the Fool for Christ of Kiev, would frequently see fire fall from heaven upon the Gifts, but he’s one of the exceptions.**
**In the Byzantine tradition, the Altar (properly, Holy Table) is always free standing in the midst of the Sanctuary (proerly, Altar).
As far as seeing what the Priest is doing, except for pointing and making the sign of the Cross a few times, can anyone, except perhaps a very great mystic, REALLY see the really important thing that happens: the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?
St. Theophilus, the Fool for Christ of Kiev, would frequently see fire fall from heaven upon the Gifts, but he’s one of the exceptions.**
J
JReducation
Guest
It is from the Eastern Churches that the Cluniac movement borrowed the idea of two tables, the one where the sacrifice is offered and the other where the Word is proclaimed. In the Cluniac tradition they are called: Table of the Eucharist and Table of the Word. The monks of Cluny taught their novices that God feeds us with both Word and Eucharist. They never downplayed the sacrifice. This was not the deal. The idea was the remind the monks that Christ fed them daily so as to keep going along their spiritual journey. The idea of sacrifice was well engrained in them. What they needed was the idea of being nurtured by God. The great saints of the Cluniac reform, especially St. Bernard and St. Romulus shifted their attention to Christ feeding.
In the Franciscan tradtion the focus was always on the cross and the Trinity, because that was the need of the time. People didn’t understand the whole concept of incarnation, cross, redemption, resurrection and Trinity all as one reality.
Each movement served to supply for a need of the time and place.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think this is an important point. Almost always, reforms and changes come about because there is some need that isn’t being met - maybe because someone is no longer filling the need, or because of a change in people or society.It is from the Eastern Churches that the Cluniac movement borrowed the idea of two tables, the one where the sacrifice is offered and the other where the Word is proclaimed. In the Cluniac tradition they are called: Table of the Eucharist and Table of the Word. The monks of Cluny taught their novices that God feeds us with both Word and Eucharist. They never downplayed the sacrifice. This was not the deal. The idea was the remind the monks that Christ fed them daily so as to keep going along their spiritual journey. The idea of sacrifice was well engrained in them. What they needed was the idea of being nurtured by God. The great saints of the Cluniac reform, especially St. Bernard and St. Romulus shifted their attention to Christ feeding.
In the Franciscan tradtion the focus was always on the cross and the Trinity, because that was the need of the time. People didn’t understand the whole concept of incarnation, cross, redemption, resurrection and Trinity all as one reality.
Each movement served to supply for a need of the time and place.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
What is tricky though is that it is easy to confuse such needs with the wants and biases of society.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is the reason that the Holy Spirit raises up charismatic men and women during different times in history. They are meant to be teachers, because they have that unique quality of seeing real need, rather than fickleness.
We have had such men and women in our own time and we must take lessons in holiness from them: Jose Maria Escriva, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, Pius XII, Catherine de Hueck Doherty, Padre Pio, Pierre Giorgio, John XXIII and these are the ones who have died. We have some who are alive and well and living among us who are also very charismatic and wonderful teachers: Fr. Benedict G, Mother Angelica, Fr. Barron, Fr. Wade Menesis, and several others.
Then we have reform movements that are growing and doing much good for the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
Jacafamala
Guest
If you get a missal, you can follow along just fine. Also, we’re not speaking to each other, we’re speaking to God. The priest is interceding on our behalf, all in the same direction towards God. It’s awkward that the priest has his back to God as is done in the OF.
J
Jacafamala
Guest
:byzsoc:
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree with you, I’d like to have all Masses with the priest facing the crucifix, but let’s be realistic. How many people want to follow the Mass in the missals or pew missalettes? The Church knows what people have a tendency to do so they have to speak facing them in order to get the message across. The priest, the readers, the cantors, even many sanctuary choirs have their backs to the cross most of the time and it’s probably not going to change.
J
JReducation
Guest
A brother from another community told me that he heard a short talk by the Holy Father. I believe it may have been one of his weekly audiences, but I may be mistaken on that. I forgt the details of where and when. It didn’t seem that important at the time.
Anwyway, the Holy Father spoke about the liturgy and the re-editing of the missal for the Ordinary Form. He made a simple statement, the form is not going to change and the vernacular is not going to be taken away. Latin is still the official language, but the vernacular is still allowed without taking anything away from the mass and the form is still considered to be holy and complete for all of man’s spiritual needs. Therefore, there is no competition between the Extraordinary and the Ordinary form and the Ordinary from will remain the norm for the Roman Church.
It’s very important to understand the concept of norm. We can love the EF and we can go to EF as often as possible. But we must accept that the OF is the norm and move on. To sit around wishing tha tthe OF were so much more similar to the EF is almost a waste of time that can be spent in contemplative prayer or in works of mercy. Even the greatest theologians, at some point, they stopped and they prayed and took care of the world around them.
I’d like to share something. This is just a share thing. I have always loved the attitude of the monks of the Cluniac movement. Had God given me a call to be a monk of that movement, I’d be there right now; but he called me to the mendicant movement. However, there is one thing about the Cluniac movement that is in place even to this day. These men and women know how to live. They do not make spend time talking, writing or thinking about these things as we do. They have a liturgical form and they worship at liturgy from their hearts and minds, without much concern for either the form or what anyone else is doing. They have a beautiful ability to live in a mental cloister, so their only focus is Jesus. They are not born this way. They discipline themselves to be like this and think this way.
In one of the decrees of Vatican II it says that God gave us these religious movements so that the entire Church would take example from them and so that we would receive grace upon grace through them. We must not let these examples go to waste.
Any one with intelligence and charity can tell the difference between a knee-jerk reaction that one may have to something that blatantly illegal in a liturgy and something that is our personal preference. In charity we have to remember that there are as many personal preferences in a church on Sunday as there are faithful. Not every personal preference can be met, even when speaking a tradition, with lower case “t”.
In charity to ourselves and to others, we must learn austerity. Francis always taught his followers, brothers, sisters and laity, that austerity begins with putting our preferences aside and sometimes even our beliefs aside. He wrote a wonderful admonition on obedience in which he tells his reader that even when you know the right way or the better way, it is more pleasing to God and to man that you obey and offer your sacrifice, than push what you know to be better. God is more pleased by our personal austerity than by our assertions.
In a meeting that Pope Benedict had with the general chapter of the entire Franciscan Order, back in April 2009, he told the 1300 delegates that the Church was pleased with their 800 year history of obedience and submmission. He did not say that the Church was pleased by their accomplishments. This was interesting. It was their austerity that the Church appreciated and believed to be an example for the world. He was speaking about this inner austerity, the ability to find Jesus and be more like him in all situations, regardless of what is happening around you.
You see, as you become more like Jesus, you begin to transform the world around you without saying much. Let us pray for ourselves, that we may learn to be less assertive in our positions and more conformed to making great sacrifices, without demanding that others make sacrifices. Our sacrifices will gain graces for others and convert many souls.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Anwyway, the Holy Father spoke about the liturgy and the re-editing of the missal for the Ordinary Form. He made a simple statement, the form is not going to change and the vernacular is not going to be taken away. Latin is still the official language, but the vernacular is still allowed without taking anything away from the mass and the form is still considered to be holy and complete for all of man’s spiritual needs. Therefore, there is no competition between the Extraordinary and the Ordinary form and the Ordinary from will remain the norm for the Roman Church.
It’s very important to understand the concept of norm. We can love the EF and we can go to EF as often as possible. But we must accept that the OF is the norm and move on. To sit around wishing tha tthe OF were so much more similar to the EF is almost a waste of time that can be spent in contemplative prayer or in works of mercy. Even the greatest theologians, at some point, they stopped and they prayed and took care of the world around them.
I’d like to share something. This is just a share thing. I have always loved the attitude of the monks of the Cluniac movement. Had God given me a call to be a monk of that movement, I’d be there right now; but he called me to the mendicant movement. However, there is one thing about the Cluniac movement that is in place even to this day. These men and women know how to live. They do not make spend time talking, writing or thinking about these things as we do. They have a liturgical form and they worship at liturgy from their hearts and minds, without much concern for either the form or what anyone else is doing. They have a beautiful ability to live in a mental cloister, so their only focus is Jesus. They are not born this way. They discipline themselves to be like this and think this way.
In one of the decrees of Vatican II it says that God gave us these religious movements so that the entire Church would take example from them and so that we would receive grace upon grace through them. We must not let these examples go to waste.
Any one with intelligence and charity can tell the difference between a knee-jerk reaction that one may have to something that blatantly illegal in a liturgy and something that is our personal preference. In charity we have to remember that there are as many personal preferences in a church on Sunday as there are faithful. Not every personal preference can be met, even when speaking a tradition, with lower case “t”.
In charity to ourselves and to others, we must learn austerity. Francis always taught his followers, brothers, sisters and laity, that austerity begins with putting our preferences aside and sometimes even our beliefs aside. He wrote a wonderful admonition on obedience in which he tells his reader that even when you know the right way or the better way, it is more pleasing to God and to man that you obey and offer your sacrifice, than push what you know to be better. God is more pleased by our personal austerity than by our assertions.
In a meeting that Pope Benedict had with the general chapter of the entire Franciscan Order, back in April 2009, he told the 1300 delegates that the Church was pleased with their 800 year history of obedience and submmission. He did not say that the Church was pleased by their accomplishments. This was interesting. It was their austerity that the Church appreciated and believed to be an example for the world. He was speaking about this inner austerity, the ability to find Jesus and be more like him in all situations, regardless of what is happening around you.
You see, as you become more like Jesus, you begin to transform the world around you without saying much. Let us pray for ourselves, that we may learn to be less assertive in our positions and more conformed to making great sacrifices, without demanding that others make sacrifices. Our sacrifices will gain graces for others and convert many souls.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I
ibkc
Guest
With all respect, Brother JR, I don’t know of many trads who sit around wishing that the Ordinary Form was more like the Extraordinary Form. In fact I don’t know of any, off the top of my head. There are some who’d like the OF to go away entirely, but I think what most of us wish for is simply that the Extraordinary Form will be made more widely available. This is in no way an unreasonable wish, and wishing for this and working towards it doesn’t preclude also spending time in contemplative prayer and/or in works of mercy. Traditional Catholics are some of the most prayerful and devoted religious people I have had the privilege of knowing in my whole life.
J
JReducation
Guest
These are not the people of whom I speak. The desie to see the EF more available is a good thing. I was referring to the many people who come to these posts wishing the OF were facing the wall, had more Latin, didn’t have communion in the hand, didn’t have EMHC, etc. Someone once posted that they didn’t eve want deacons giving communion because deacons are lay men, which is not true. Deacons are clerics. A lay man or woman is anyone who is not ordained. Even religious are canonically lay people, since more than half of religious men and no religious women are ordained.
Going to mass and lamenting all of these things is a waste of precious time and mental energy that can be devoted to contemplation and works of charity. I’ve always told my novices that it is a sin against the rule to waste time and energy, since time and energy belong to God, not to man. They are gifts that God gives us for the good of the Body, meaning the Mystical Body. This has nothing to do with this thread, but it’s an interesting tid-bit. In our community the brothers do not discuss the liturgy, except when planning liturgy, which is done by two brothers every week. Outside of that, the only time that liturgy is ever discussed is in the schola (classroom), which we have for two hours a week with the professed and four hours a day with the novices. But in those sessions we limit the discussion to the history of the liturgy, the symbols, theology of the liturgy, and what Franciscan writers have said about the liturgy. It’s a time that is spent learning about the liturgy from another perspective. The hope always is that when the brothers worship they will come to the liturgy with a deeper understanding, especially a Franciscan understanding of liturgy and the place of the liturgy in the life of the Order. Sometimes, lay people will ask if they can attend these classes, even though they are not bound to the rule. But we have many friends who want to understand liturgy from the Franciscan perspective, which is very beautiful and very simple at the same time. It’s very incarnational.
I hope I clarified whom I was speaking about.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Excellent post 475, JReducation 
.
.- Status