Should traditions of religious life be allowed to influence parish life?

[iloveangels]

And to get back to the point of the thread—look at the title----these small churches are every bit as full of religious order influence as the big ones. Look on the walls. Stations of the cross–Bingo–Franciscans.

 

[TimothyH]

Again, you’re bending words. I never said that the Church has always changed gradually.

I am not talking about “the Church.” I am talking about a very specific couple of things like architecture and [visual, structural] art, which is all I am concerned about here.

Interesting points about monastic theology.

St. Francis. Okay.

The “Tridentine Mass,” from what I have read, was really not very much different at all from the kind of liturgy that most of Europe was using before Quo Primum. But again, my argument isn’t about liturgy as much as it is about architecture and art and things like the Rosary.

I am not concerned about music here. I am concerned about some specific things and how a broader principle applies to them. I would argue that the vast majority of decisions in the Church, whether an act of the Magesterium or at the simple parish level, have been done in an organic, natural way.

I was not bending words on purpose. I’m actually a little confused.

In post number 3 you specifically mention tradition and parish life. In post number 13 on this thread you state that “architecture, art, music, spirituality, basically everything else” except the Mass are your concerns. Here you seem to restrict that focus quite a bit, specifically eliminating music for example, and bring up the rosary.

I’m not really understanding. As another has stated, it does seem to be a moving target, or perhaps a shrinking one.

-Tim-

 

[YoungTradCath]

I was not bending words on purpose. I’m actually a little confused.

In post number 3 you specifically mention tradition and parish life. In post number 13 on this thread you state that “architecture, art, music, spirituality, basically everything else” except the Mass are your concerns. Here you seem to restrict that focus quite a bit, specifically eliminating music for example, and bring up the rosary.

I’m not really understanding. As another has stated, it does seem to be a moving target, or perhaps a shrinking one.

-Tim-

My point, ultimately, is to use unspecific theoretical examples to illustrate a principle. I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear. I tend to extrapolate a lot before I tie it up.

 

[iloveangels]

My point, ultimately, is to use unspecific theoretical examples to illustrate a principle. I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear. I tend to extrapolate a lot before I tie it up.

Well it’s extrapolating all over the milky way and it’s not tying up at all.

If you want to do away with the accomplishments & symbolism from religious orders, you’re going to have to become a Lutheran or else wear earplugs and blinders. Your choice.

Accomplishments & symbols from religious orders are all over the Church. The Church is full of it. The Catechism is full of it. Devotions are full of it. Sacramentals are full of it. The Mass itself is full of it. Good luck.

 

[choliks]

I was not bending words on purpose. I’m actually a little confused.

In post number 3 you specifically mention tradition and parish life. In post number 13 on this thread you state that “architecture, art, music, spirituality, basically everything else” except the Mass are your concerns. Here you seem to restrict that focus quite a bit, specifically eliminating music for example, and bring up the rosary.

I’m not really understanding. As another has stated, it does seem to be a moving target, or perhaps a shrinking one.

-Tim-

My thoughts exactly. I can’t seem to pin down of the thread anymore. Which is also good because it prevented me from posting.

 

[JReducation]

There are several things that one has to examine.

First:

Religious life is much older than parish life. The first parishes, if one wants to use the term very loosely were cathedrals. Who ran them? Canons regular. They were religious. Most of them were Augustinian of some kine. There are many kinds of Augustinians, not important here. What is important is that they didn’t know anything else, except Augustinian culture.

If we want to, we can probably call the early monastic communities, parishes, particular the Benedictine ones. The laity’s life revolved around the monastery. Most of the local farmers were tenant farmers on the monks’ lands. Again, there was the heavy Benedictine influence in what later became parish life.

Second:

Secular priests didn’t really run parishes. They were usually assigned to chapel or church. The parish was usually an entire county. It was not a parish as we think today. Secular priests do not have a collective spirituality. Therefore, there is such thing as a secular spirituality. Secular priests took their spirituality from the religious and they still do. Some lean one way and other lean the other way.

Third:

Spirituality is going to express itself. This is where customs and practices come into the picture. Spirituality has to express itself. Christian Spirituality is not mute. There is only one spirituality, that is Christian Spirituality. There are different schools of Christian Spirituality. What does this mean? It means that there are going to be different emphases and different expressions of shared beliefs. It’s not that Franciscans believe one thing, Dominicans another and Diocesan priests another. We all believe the same thing. But we approach it differently In the case of religious, we approach it as a corporate body. All of us buy into it. You don’t become a Salesian when you feel like a Benedictine. That’s silly. You become a Salesian, because you found your spiritual home in that school of Christian Spirituality. Wherever you go, you’re going to take that with you.

Fourth:

Vows. Depending on the religious community, some have more demanding vows of obedience and fidelity to the spirituality of the founder than others. For example, Franciscans are mandated by Francis himself, to spread the Gospel in his manner. We have no choice in the matter. Francis never gave us a choice. He chose the path to follow the Gospel and handed it down to us. He left us with a Testament that binds us to obey him beyond the grave. For 800 years, we have taken our Franciscan customs and practices to every assignment, including parishes. It’s part of the bargain.

If a bishop wants us to staff a parish, we come with the whole Franciscan school. The bishops know this, respect this and they commit to allowing the community to thrive. The first duty of every religious community is to itself, then to its ministry. It cannot let itself die or else, there will be no one there to serve the people. What keeps it alive is its spirituality, which is expressed through customs, rituals, art, music, horariums etc.

For example, a friar has confessions from 4 - 5 and had community prayers at 5:15. At 5:00, there are still 6 people on line. He mus excuse himself and ask those people to come back at another time, because he has to be at community prayers at 5:15. He cannot miss praying with his brothers. It may be something that he can miss a few times a year, be he can’t make it a habit under the pretext that he is needed by the parishioners. Parishioners always have needs. There are usually thousands of parishioners.

Franciscans are not the only ones who have a strong filiall bond with their founder. The OMIs, OCDs, OSB, OSFS, CSsR and I’m sure that I’m leaving some out. Let’s face it, founders were very charismatic people. Some of them were both charismatic and very parental. In the case where they were parental, their sons inherited their values and the external expressions of those values.

So, you will go to an OSB parish and find the tabernacle in a side chapel, usually close to the sanctuary or on a side of the sanctuary itself. That’s where St. Benedict placed it. There was a reason in his mind for that. His sons,who have a strong attachment to him to this day, which is admirable, are not going to change that. It would be concealing their identity. It’s like trying to hide the fact that one is black in the middle of a Swedish nightclub. It does not work.

Religious tried this for about 125 years until about 1980. The results were catastrophic. Religious houses became rectories. The parishes became diocesan, with no distinguishing spirituality. The community became housemates. This made religious life very attractive. There was a vocation explosion in from about 1900 to 1950. Unfortunately, the men who entered, were not familiar with the charism of the order. They were familiar with the way of life that they had seen as they had grown up. When the Church told the orders, return to your charism, these men left. The ones who stayed had many problems, not all, obviously. There were alcoholics, depressed people, angry people and so forth.

No, religious will never again try to accommodate to the diocesan parish model. Religious today have made it clear to the bishops that they can only take parishes in places where they can be religious inside the house, in the parish church, at the parish school, around the neighborhood, etc. Other religious communities have simply said that they will no longer take parishes. They are keeping what they have and when they run out of men who want to serve in them, they turn them back to the bishop. The bishop has to staff them.

 

[JReducation]

I would suggest reading Perfectae Caritatis and Vita Consecrata to address this question. Both make it very clear that it is the mission of the religious to influence the secular, not to hide their charism, customs and spirituality. The Church expects to see an overflow of Carmelite spirituality in a parish run by Carmelites. Does the laity have to participate in everything that is Carmelite? Of course not. That would be a silly requirement. Does the laity have to accept that the Carmelites use a different missal and lectionary? Yes it does. That’s something that the Carmelites cannot change. To be honest, I just threw the Carmelites in there as an example. I don’t know if they have their own missal. I know that Franciscans have their own missal, lectionary, breviary and liturgical calendar. Parishes staffed by Franciscans follow that liturgical calendar and use those books, not the Roman ones. They actually overlap more often than not. The differences are only on Franciscan holy days.

I use the missal example of something that cannot be changed. You can’t ask a Benedictine not to follow the Benedictine liturgical calendar, because you’re secular. The secular man is not bound to any particular liturgical calendar. He has flexibility, whereas the Benedictine is bound to his calendar. You’re going to celebrate every Benedictine saint in that calendar. That’s not a bad thing.

At the end of the day, it’s very good for the laity to have a diverse experience of the Christian life rather than hide that diversity behind the walls of cloisters, priories, friaries and monasteries. That’s not what Catholics should want. That’s not how we began.

For example, I work with Respect Life Ministry. I founded a program for a diocese. The condition was that the program would be based on the spirituality of St. Francis and the methods would be Franciscan. It was founded for the diocese. The diocese agreed and the program took off. It has been growing and growing. The lay volunteers hear a great deal about St. Francis and the different Franciscan masters and different Franciscan approaches to ministry. The diocese doesn’t want to change it, because it works.

The practices of religious life are part of Catholic tradition and should not be hidden. The relationship between the religious and the parishioners should be nurtured by the spirituality of that religious community. There is no such thing as a bad religious spirituality. Otherwise, it would not exist in the Church. They’re all beautiful in one way or another. If I were in a Salesian parish, I wouldn’t ask them to touch a thing. I have nothing but admiration and love for John Bosco and Francis de Sales.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well it’s extrapolating all over the milky way and it’s not tying up at all.

If you want to do away with the accomplishments & symbolism from religious orders, you’re going to have to become a Lutheran or else wear earplugs and blinders. Your choice.

Accomplishments & symbols from religious orders are all over the Church. The Church is full of it. The Catechism is full of it. Devotions are full of it. Sacramentals are full of it. The Mass itself is full of it. Good luck.

I challenge you directly to tell me where I said, “Get rid of Religious influences.” I think you are seeing aggressiveness where there isn’t any. Oh my, oh my…

Again, my point is:

1. “The Religious do it,” and, “The parishes do it,” on their own fail as arguments to adopt a practice.
2. “We did it 1400 years ago,” also on its own fails as an argument to adopt a practice.
3. That is not to say that parishes and Religious cannot influence each other. They can.
4. My concern is primarily over how it happens.
5. If it happens, it happens, but it should be done in an organic and natural way, and not forced by agenda-driven bureaucrats.

Disclaimer: I am not talking about parishes staffed by Religious. They do as is their custom, which is obviously fine.

I don’t understand how these totally and utterly reasonable observations are objectionable, and I don’t understand how conclusions such as, “If you want to do away with the accomplishments & symbolism from religious orders…” can be drawn from that.

My point this whole time was to be positive and fair to both sides so that Religious identity is not destroyed by parishes and parish identity is not destroyed by Religious by voraciously gobbling up each others practices over the course of a parish church renovation or new construction. Caution and careful thinking is always the best route. Isn’t that what being “pastoral” (oh my!) is all about?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Reading through Br JR’s post and thinking about what I know of history (western Europe since that area was very Catholic), I’m not sure I see anything that holds together as a ‘parish identity’ across parishes.

Dominicans can be identified no matter where they are and parishes run by Dominicans will likely be similar in various ways. But from one diocesean run parish to the next, I don’t see a consistent identity.

For example, there are 3 parishes close to my house. We have attended Mass at all of them and wouldbe perfectly comfortable going to any of them regularly - they aren’t all that different. However, the music at each is different; the devotions, special Masses and feasts emphasised are different. Architecture is different, statues, etc.

Parish A uses a chant setting for the sung Mass parts. The priests all regularly chant sections of the Mass, the sequences are always used as applicable and always chanted. Architechture is very 60s - brick wall behind the altar, very stylized statues.

Parish B uses a sung setting for the Mass parts, loves Glory and Praise hymns. Their pews are from a 1920’s church that was torn down, the tabernacle is directly behind the altar wreathed in gold. They have a special First Friday Mass with confession and benediction.

Parish C does not have a choir, some Sunday Masses go without music. The church is built in a half round style, there are no statues in the front of the church and very little art at all. They offer an EF every Sunday afternoon.

Those 3 parishes are made up of amazing contradictions between the style of the architecture and the style of the worship. Once a church is built, often not much can be done about what the place looks like. Major renovations take money. Stained glass, gold leaf, statues and other art are expensive. (As is tearing those things out in favor of concert stamped with wheat and grape designs.)

Priests, staff, and the lay volunteers who make programs happen come and go (obviously not instantly). If a parish has a priest who is willing to hear confessions, say Mass, and offer benediction on First Fridays – and parishioners who will attend – then it is offered. Same with an EF Mass, public LOTH, etc.

So if a religious order, or priests influenced by religious are staffing a parish, the way certain things happen will be influenced by them. But if a Franciscan group moves into a parish where the church was built 75 years ago by Benedictines with the tabernacle in a side chapel, I doubt the first thing they’ll do is spend thousands to have it moved. They’ll adapt to the architecture, but their spirituality will influence other things.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Reading through Br JR’s post and thinking about what I know of history (western Europe since that area was very Catholic), I’m not sure I see anything that holds together as a ‘parish identity’ across parishes.

Dominicans can be identified no matter where they are and parishes run by Dominicans will likely be similar in various ways. But from one diocesean run parish to the next, I don’t see a consistent identity.

For example, there are 3 parishes close to my house. We have attended Mass at all of them and wouldbe perfectly comfortable going to any of them regularly - they aren’t all that different. However, the music at each is different; the devotions, special Masses and feasts emphasised are different. Architecture is different, statues, etc.

Parish A uses a chant setting for the sung Mass parts. The priests all regularly chant sections of the Mass, the sequences are always used as applicable and always chanted. Architechture is very 60s - brick wall behind the altar, very stylized statues.

Parish B uses a sung setting for the Mass parts, loves Glory and Praise hymns. Their pews are from a 1920’s church that was torn down, the tabernacle is directly behind the altar wreathed in gold. They have a special First Friday Mass with confession and benediction.

Parish C does not have a choir, some Sunday Masses go without music. The church is built in a half round style, there are no statues in the front of the church and very little art at all. They offer an EF every Sunday afternoon.

Those 3 parishes are made up of amazing contradictions between the style of the architecture and the style of the worship. Once a church is built, often not much can be done about what the place looks like. Major renovations take money. Stained glass, gold leaf, statues and other art are expensive. (As is tearing those things out in favor of concert stamped with wheat and grape designs.)

Priests, staff, and the lay volunteers who make programs happen come and go (obviously not instantly). If a parish has a priest who is willing to hear confessions, say Mass, and offer benediction on First Fridays – and parishioners who will attend – then it is offered. Same with an EF Mass, public LOTH, etc.

So if a religious order, or priests influenced by religious are staffing a parish, the way certain things happen will be influenced by them. But if a Franciscan group moves into a parish where the church was built 75 years ago by Benedictines with the tabernacle in a side chapel, I doubt the first thing they’ll do is spend thousands to have it moved. They’ll adapt to the architecture, but their spirituality will influence other things.

I think we basically agree. Although I do hate P&W music with a passion!

 

[Melchior_1]

1. “The Religious do it,” and, “The parishes do it,” on their own fail as arguments to adopt a practice.
2. “We did it 1400 years ago,” also on its own fails as an argument to adopt a practice.
3. That is not to say that parishes and Religious cannot influence each other. They can.
4. My concern is primarily over how it happens.
5. If it happens, it happens, but it should be done in an organic and natural way, and not forced by agenda-driven bureaucrats.

1. You’re still losing sight of the fact that there is no invisible wall that separates the two of them. Religious influence the Church in a myriad of ways, all without directly running a parish. And if the Pope is influenced by religious, that will affect the whole Church. Pope Benedict XVI is a big fan of Franciscan theology, which has impacted several of his policies, thought process, and spirituality.
2. “We did it 1400 years ago and are still doing it in some places” and “it’s an authentic Catholic tradition” are valid reasons to go back and do something, provided there’s a reason to do so. In some cases, no reason is required.
3. They can influence each other, but only in the ways that you deem acceptable.
4. Define “how it happens”, what method is acceptable?
5. So you’re opposed to these guys, who dropped a new translation on our laps with no negotiation? Archbishop Terrence Prendergast is a Jesuit, so there’s some religious influence on a committee which enacted a change within the Church.

Who helped the CDF with the SSPX dialogues? A fellow from Opus Dei, a Dominican, and another guy.

 

[YoungTradCath]

1. You’re still losing sight of the fact that there is no invisible wall that separates the two of them. Religious influence the Church in a myriad of ways, all without directly running a parish. And if the Pope is influenced by religious, that will affect the whole Church. Pope Benedict XVI is a big fan of Franciscan theology, which has impacted several of his policies, thought process, and spirituality.
2. “We did it 1400 years ago and are still doing it in some places” and “it’s an authentic Catholic tradition” are valid reasons to go back and do something, provided there’s a reason to do so. In some cases, no reason is required.
3. They can influence each other, but only in the ways that you deem acceptable.
4. Define “how it happens”, what method is acceptable?
5. So you’re opposed to these guys, who dropped a new translation on our laps with no negotiation? Archbishop Terrence Prendergast is a Jesuit, so there’s some religious influence on a committee which enacted a change within the Church.

Who helped the CDF with the SSPX dialogues? A fellow from Opus Dei, a Dominican, and another guy.

1. I never claimed as much. However, I am realistic in the sense that I think it is better to be cautious because the Religious life and parish life are sufficiently different for there to reasonably be differences in prudent practices for both. It does not matter to me how the Pope makes his decisions. I personally don’t feel any more Franciscan now than I did, say, four years ago.
2. Yes, provided there’s a reason for doing so, as you say. On the second point, I am not sure who makes a decision for no reason at all.
3. Look, I am trying to be realistic while respecting Religious and parishes. Is that bad?
4. Naturally and organically, as I have said that many, many times.
5. A bit different, no? That was not drastic, or at least I wouldn’t define it as such. The essential parts of the old and new Missals are virtually the same, but the translation is different. I wasn’t aware there was a “Religious way of translating” and a “parish way of translating.”

What is the point of this last bit? That subject has absolutely nothing to do with practices and tradition and is purely administrative and canonical in nature, and is not what we are concerned with here.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I think we basically agree. Although I do hate P&W music with a passion!

I’m hurt.*Gifts of Finest Wheat *is one of my favorites!

 

[TimothyH]

I was thinking about this thread last night.

With regards to religious being influenced by secular, my answer is no.

It occured to me that the monastic communities have the enclosure for a reason. The enclosure walls physically segregate the monastic community from the rest of the world, allowing them to keep out those things which do not suit their way of life and at the same time providing a way to invite inside the enclosure only those things which are supportive to their way of life. The enclosure wall is both a barrier and a entry way, but the entry is strictly controlled. The rule is an enclosure for their behavior, ordering it to the gospel. They place an enclosure around their heart, guarding it against outside influences. I assume the same idea exists for active religious to a lesser or greater extent. So my answer is that there should be little influence on religious communites from secular parishes.

I believe exactly the opposite to be true for secular parishes. The religious pray seven hours every day. The religious live lives based on the Gospel in ways that are authentic, ways which are not only being blessed by the Church but proven to produce holy men and women - saints - over many centuries. Both cloistered and active religious communities represent a great well from which we who live in the world can draw. I think we should be more influenced by the religious.

As an example, for me, embracing the idea of cloister and enclosure in my life, thanks in part to a few things Brother JR has mentioned in some other posts which got me started and subsequent reading on the topic has been a great help to me. To guard my physical space, guard my way of life and behavior with certain non-negotiable rules, and to keep an enclosure around my heart has been a great help.

We can talk about architecutre and art and music, and that is fine, but I think it misses the point a bit. Our Church has four Nashville Dominicans who run the parish school. They rotate every two years. After seeing several rotations, the thing that stands out in my mind are their smiles. They smile constantly. I see joy in their lives. That’s what I want. And every night they retire into their little cloistered convent across the street and pray. I see the light on in their chapel, and I know they are praying. That’s what I want.

-Tim-

 

[agnes_therese]

To be honest, I just threw the Carmelites in there as an example. I don’t know if they have their own missal. Fraternally,

Just FYI –
Yes, we do, for the Carmelite feasts. Also a breviary supplement.

(speaking of Discalced here)

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I was thinking about this thread last night.

With regards to religious being influenced by secular, my answer is no.

It occured to me that the monastic communities have the enclosure for a reason. The enclosure walls physically segregate the monastic community from the rest of the world, allowing them to keep out those things which do not suit their way of life and at the same time providing a way to invite inside the enclosure only those things which are supportive to their way of life. The enclosure wall is both a barrier and a entry way, but the entry is strictly controlled. The rule is an enclosure for their behavior, ordering it to the gospel. They place an enclosure around their heart, guarding it against outside influences. I assume the same idea exists for active religious to a lesser or greater extent. So my answer is that there should be little influence on religious communites from secular parishes.

I believe exactly the opposite to be true for secular parishes. The religious pray seven hours every day. The religious live lives based on the Gospel in ways that are authentic, ways which are not only being blessed by the Church but proven to produce holy men and women - saints - over many centuries. Both cloistered and active religious communities represent a great well from which we who live in the world can draw. I think we should be more influenced by the religious.

As an example, for me, embracing the idea of cloister and enclosure in my life, thanks in part to a few things Brother JR has mentioned in some other posts which got me started and subsequent reading on the topic has been a great help to me. To guard my physical space, guard my way of life and behavior with certain non-negotiable rules, and to keep an enclosure around my heart has been a great help.

We can talk about architecutre and art and music, and that is fine, but I think it misses the point a bit. Our Church has four Nashville Dominicans who run the parish school. They rotate every two years. After seeing several rotations, the thing that stands out in my mind are their smiles. They smile constantly. I see joy in their lives. That’s what I want. And every night they retire into their little cloistered convent across the street and pray. I see the light on in their chapel, and I know they are praying. That’s what I want.

-Tim-

Very beautiful! Thanks Tim. I have often thought about putting the Bible verse, “Whatsoever things are good…think in these things” on my TV. A way to remind me to keep an enclosure on my mind and heart.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, there can be organic changes due to the influence of Religious.

However, I don’t think when we’re discussing things here on CAF, one should say, well this religious order does it this way.

I presume there are reasons why Religious do things a certain way. It doesn’t mean those reasons apply or should apply to parishes, unless again, it is a Parish staffed by Religious.

I can apply to parishes not run by religious, if it has the sanction of the pastor. The reason being is rather simple. The laity and diocesan clergy are all secular. The Church realizes that the secular Catholic does not have a corporate spirituality. People lean in different directions. There is no such thing as a secular spirituality The pastor is free to bring in, from the religious, whatever he believes is good for his parish. The reason that he is free to do so is because whatever it is that the religious are doing, it has been approved by the Church, usually for hundreds of years.

Organic development does not mean that a parish cannot make quick changes. It applies in the macro not in the micro.

The bishop of Savannah Georgia is a Fanciscan. OFM.

The Most Reverend Gregory J. Hartmayer, OFM Conv.

-Tim-

As he settles in you will see the diocese acquire a Franciscan flavor. You may even see an increase in Franciscan presence. For example, in Boston, they now have about 10 different branches of Franciscans. The diocesan priests and the diocesan seminarians refer to the cardinal as “Our Friar” or as “Cardinal Sean”. Capuchins have a long tradition of using first name rather than last. He has kept that tradition going. He dresses as a friar, not as a cardinal.

In Denver and Philadelphia the people and clergy have been hit with obedience. Obedience is a major theme in Franciscan life. Archbishop Chaput is also a Capuchin. Capuchins have a strong tradition of obedience to Church authorities, even when they disagree. They also have a very strong tradition of respecting the chain of command. It’s not my duty to correct the bishop. I’m no in the chain of command. It is my duty to point out a danger, offer advice and offer assistance and to ask for help. That’s where my duty ends. Archbishop Chaput always reminds everyone, “We do not own the Church.” That’s a very Franciscan theme. You’ll see little things like that pop up and you won’t even realize it. They’re subtle.

Reading through Br JR’s post and thinking about what I know of history (western Europe since that area was very Catholic), I’m not sure I see anything that holds together as a ‘parish identity’ across parishes.

There isn’t, because most parishes are run by secular clergy. There is no shared secular spirituality.

Dominicans can be identified no matter where they are and parishes run by Dominicans will likely be similar in various ways.

This is why the Church borrows so heavily from the orders, because there is consistency and there is a tradition that you can say, this goes back to X. For example, when you walk into any Catholic Church you will see the stations of the cross depicted in some way. That’s Franciscan. Francis put up 14 simple wooden crosses. You will see the creche at Christmas. That’s Franciscan. Francis recovered it after it had been abandoned for over 500 years. You will see a Christmas pageant at mass and a passion play at mass. That’s Franciscan. Francis introduced drama into the liturgy, because people couldn’t read. You will see the tabernacle front and center. That’s Franciscan. You may have adoration. That’s Franciscan. It goes back to Francis and Clare.

Like this, many secular priests have borrowed from those religious who influenced them the most and brought what they borrowed into their parishes. They still do. There is a parish in our town named St. Maximilian Kolbe. It’s run by diocesan clergy. They do some Franciscan things to help the parishioners remember that their patron is Franciscan, not just a priest. Everyone thinks of St. Max as priest and martyr.

So if a religious order, or priests influenced by religious are staffing a parish, the way certain things happen will be influenced by them. But if a Franciscan group moves into a parish where the church was built 75 years ago by Benedictines with the tabernacle in a side chapel, I doubt the first thing they’ll do is spend thousands to have it moved. They’ll adapt to the architecture, but their spirituality will influence other things.

The decision is not up to the pastor or the parish council. The decision is made by the superior. Often, the pastor and superior are the same person. It is the superior’s duty to protect his community and promote the spirit of his religious institute. That spirit is a pathway to Christ.

Just FYI –
Yes, we do, for the Carmelite feasts. Also a breviary supplement.

(speaking of Discalced here)

You see, now I’m smarter today than yesterday.

We don’t have the supplement. We have an actual Franciscan Liturgical Commission that writes the entire missal and breviary using the Roman Missal as the skeleton. The readings are matched accordingly. The FLC then presents its books to the CDW for approval.

I remember when we were in transition, we had a little book that had the Franciscan feasts for the breviary. I know what the supplement is. Eventually, someone will review the supplement, change what needs to be changed and then publish a Carmelite Breviary so that everything is in one book. You just go form Book I to whatever. Some lay people still use that little book, because it’s cheaper than buying the four volume Franciscan Breviary.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV )

 

[TimothyH]

Very beautiful! Thanks Tim. I have often thought about putting the Bible verse, “Whatsoever things are good…think in these things” on my TV. A way to remind me to keep an enclosure on my mind and heart.

There was a wonderful essay on this topic at the website for the International Association of Lay Cistercian Communities.

cistercianfamily.org/resources.asp?language=english#

Unfortunately the link to "Enclosure and Solitude of Heart or, Guarding One’s Heart (Mother Gail Fitzpatrick)" is broken. I’ve emailed the contact listed on the website to see if it can be fixed.

-Tim-

 

[iloveangels]

I challenge you directly to tell me where I said, “Get rid of Religious influences.” I think you are seeing aggressiveness where there isn’t any. Oh my, oh my…

Again, my point is:

1. “The Religious do it,” and, “The parishes do it,” on their own fail as arguments to adopt a practice.
2. “We did it 1400 years ago,” also on its own fails as an argument to adopt a practice.
3. That is not to say that parishes and Religious cannot influence each other. They can.
4. My concern is primarily over how it happens.
5. If it happens, it happens, but it should be done in an organic and natural way, and not forced by agenda-driven bureaucrats.

Disclaimer: I am not talking about parishes staffed by Religious. They do as is their custom, which is obviously fine.

I don’t understand how these totally and utterly reasonable observations are objectionable, and I don’t understand how conclusions such as, “If you want to do away with the accomplishments & symbolism from religious orders…” can be drawn from that.

My point this whole time was to be positive and fair to both sides so that Religious identity is not destroyed by parishes and parish identity is not destroyed by Religious by voraciously gobbling up each others practices over the course of a parish church renovation or new construction. Caution and careful thinking is always the best route. Isn’t that what being “pastoral” (oh my!) is all about?

Except the title of this thread is exactly: “SHOULD religious practices influence secular parish life?” It’s not HOW should religious practices influence secular parish life.

Like I said before, this thread is all over the milky way, and it’s a mess because the goalposts keep moving.

Besides you can’t have a Catholic church without the influences of religious orders. It’s impossible because of the history of the Catholic Church. You’d end up with something that looks like the inside of a cardboard box with no mass, no rosary, nothing. Give it up.

 

[iloveangels]

One other point. You can’t tell people they have to throw away their rosaries just because they have a Dominican history. Or tell people they have to get rid of their Stations of the Cross or Nativity Scenes because they’re Franciscan.

So why is that?

a) because they’re not going to listen to you. Those things help them, they like those things and they KNOW they’re Catholic.
b) you don’t have the right to boss people around and people know it. They know they can use these things.
c) religious organizations within the Catholic Church, and the gifts they’ve given the Church have enduring value. Whether some people like it or not.