Something I've Noticed

[JReducation]

Yeah, I kind of knew most of that that. I suppose I should’ve tempered my wording a bit but what I really meant was that there are certain traditional elements in diocesan liturgies which are just as significant, symbolically powerful and appropriate as elements in monastic liturgies. There’s always going to be crossover and I love that but enforcing versus populum ubiquitously just because it was a common feature in Franciscan liturgies doesn’t fly for me. Neither would replacing Gregorian chant with the more monotonous monastic styles fly. It’s these kinds of elements that I feel should be left alone in their various domains.

I understand, but that’s also going to depend on who runs your diocese and your parish. If you have a religious for a bishop or religious running the parish, the influence will be much greater.

A priest who is a religious will celebrate the mass according to the norms of his order, not according to GIRM. Parts of the GIRM do not apply to him. His first duty is always to his order. If it’s a religious community that does not do Gregorian Chant, it’s not going to happen, because the superior will not allow it or the constitutions do not allow it. Gregorian chant is banned in some constitutions and also by some founders of religious orders and the Church upholds the ban. In their case, Gregorian Chant does not have the place that it has in the rest of the Latin Church and their parishes and chapels are not expected to accommodate. It’s part of the bargain of having religious in positions of authority. They bring their charism and traditions to the job.

On the other hand, if the parish is run by diocesan priests, the decisions are really up to the pastor with the blessing of the bishop. Again, if the bishop is a religious, his tradition will have a very strong influence on the men in his diocese. If the bishop is a diocesan priest, there will be more room to negotiate.

There is not going to be a universally consistent way of doing things. There never has been. It’s a nice myth that exists in some people’s minds. The important thing is to do them well, whichever way they’re done.

Hmmm, yeah that’s what I thought too. But I don’t actually know if it’s a common Middle Eastern thing. It could be Islamic influence that may have led to the decline of this posture if it were at all common in the Middle East at one point - seeing as as far as I know, the orans is more common in Islam. Hopefully someone else will have more information.

I’ve seen this among Indians (in India), Arabs, Chinese, Japanese and other Far East cultures. That’s why I was wondering if it could be an Eastern custom. I remember meeting Mother Teresa. She always greeted everyone as if she were Hindu. When asked why, she said that it was the Hindu custom and that she was Indian. Indian culture is dominated by Hindu and Muslim customs.

I am #1 from the beginning to the end. It is just more comfortable for me, if I cross my fingers I tend to clench them and then they hurt.

I would imagine that if a person has arthritis in the hands, this would be painful, no?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[iohanne]

I understand, but that’s also going to depend on who runs your diocese and your parish. If you have a religious for a bishop or religious running the parish, the influence will be much greater.

A priest who is a religious will celebrate the mass according to the norms of his order, not according to GIRM. Parts of the GIRM do not apply to him. His first duty is always to his order. If it’s a religious community that does not do Gregorian Chant, it’s not going to happen, because the superior will not allow it or the constitutions do not allow it. Gregorian chant is banned in some constitutions and also by some founders of religious orders and the Church upholds the ban. In their case, Gregorian Chant does not have the place that it has in the rest of the Latin Church and their parishes and chapels are not expected to accommodate. It’s part of the bargain of having religious in positions of authority. They bring their charism and traditions to the job.

On the other hand, if the parish is run by diocesan priests, the decisions are really up to the pastor with the blessing of the bishop. Again, if the bishop is a religious, his tradition will have a very strong influence on the men in his diocese. If the bishop is a diocesan priest, there will be more room to negotiate.

Thank you for your information, it’s fascinating. However, I don’t think I’m making myself well understood: I can understand those circumstances but what I find I am still in disagreement with is the notion that liturgical renewals involving the change in Roman Missals - changes that would be upheld by GIRM, for example - be automatically considered as necessary changes just because it worked in a monastic atmosphere. I have read both of your posts and while I can concede that the monastic communities have much to offer for the universal Church - indeed, the remarkable contributions to art, history, music, science, theology and philosophy during the mediaeval period are testaments in and of themselves - I think important considerations should be made for what is properly the domain of the diocesan liturgies. There’s going to be crossover influences and indeed many religious communities will be in charge of the local parishes and as I mentioned I am not against that. I am against abolishing the developments that occurred in the Roman Rite that constitute a valid part of the traditions of many Roman rite Catholics and are valuable elements in and of themselves for expressing piety, wonder, adoration and worship… in order to replace it with something that may have worked equally as well in a monastic atmosphere. I’m not one of those Trads that idolises the Roman liturgy of the 1950s and seek to demonise the new Mass under all sorts of false pretenses. Believe me, I’m not. But what I do observe is that there existed liturgical unrest and legitimate problems in the Roman rite prior to Vatican II but there still exists liturgical unrest and legitimate problems in the Roman rite after. I don’t think the solution to that is to necessarily borrow what has worked for the monks.

That’s all I’m sayin’, bro. I seriously get that there’s crossover and influences - the chaplaincy at my old university was run by a charismatic order and their Masses and the musical settings had a very charismatic feel. Okay, cool. I’m a decent bloke - I get that its because of their order’s charism. But when I go to my local diocesan parish with my parents, I’m glad that the catholicity of the parish is pre-eminently honoured.

So it’s not about complete liturgical uniformity that I care about nor that most traditionalists care about. It’s just that some people on these forums sometimes turn to monastic practices as a defense for certain liturgical behaviours or “innovations” but it doesn’t actually constitute an argument as to whether or not a certain liturgical behaviour or innovation can contribute to and nourish the prayer lives of over one billion Catholics all over the globe - many of whom may not be as educated as most monks and many of whom, myself included, do not have the same deep and profound spirituality that is cultivated in monastic settings. “The monks do it and it worked for them and it’s totally traditional” doesn’t constitute a valid argument for whether or not your average modern man can experience an inner transformation in worship.

There is not going to be a universally consistent way of doing things. There never has been. It’s a nice myth that exists in some people’s minds. The important thing is to do them well, whichever way they’re done.

No dispute here.

I’ve seen this among Indians (in India), Arabs, Chinese, Japanese and other Far East cultures. That’s why I was wondering if it could be an Eastern custom. I remember meeting Mother Teresa. She always greeted everyone as if she were Hindu. When asked why, she said that it was the Hindu custom and that she was Indian. Indian culture is dominated by Hindu and Muslim customs.

Yeah, cool. Thanks for the info.

ICXC NIKA

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Are there Latin Rite orders that legitimately ban Gregorian chant for good reasons?

And I know Dominican chant is legitimate and Dominicans don’t use Gregorian chant.

I mean are there Latin Rite orders that don’t use any traditional chant? Sounds fishy to me.

Even the most austere Cistercians have a chant tradition.

The liturgy is chanted; non-chanted liturgy is historically a concession to necessity.

 

[Rich_C]

I don’t know of any significant difference between #1 and #2 but since #1 seems (to me) more reverent but less comfortable, I use #2 most of the time and #1 from the Sanctus to the post communion prayer.

I think the orans position is fine in and of itself, but in these confused times when the difference between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood seems (in my experience with other Catholics) to be very poorly understood, I think it would help if the faithful assisting at Mass refrained from using it there as in the context of the Holy Sacrifice there is a theology reason for the priest to use it, proper to his distinct role as an alter Christi and all that. Just my two cents.

 

[JReducation]

Are there Latin Rite orders that legitimately ban Gregorian chant for good reasons?

And I know Dominican chant is legitimate and Dominicans don’t use Gregorian chant.

I mean are there Latin Rite orders that don’t use any traditional chant? Sounds fishy to me.

Even the most austere Cistercians have a chant tradition.

The liturgy is chanted; non-chanted liturgy is historically a concession to necessity.

There are Latin Rite religious orders that banned Gregorian Chant simply because the founder did not approve of it. The founder’s voice is the voice of Christ; therefore, his voice is final. Only a pope can overrule him.

The Dominicans, Carmelites and Carhusians used their own rites, which did not include Gregorian chant. Francis banned it, even though Franciscans use the Roman Rite. He banned it because at the time, the religious communities made a distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained. Only the ordained were taught to use Gregorian Chant. Francis wanted to blur the lines between the priest and the laity and the ordained brother and non ordained brother and nun as much as possible. Gregorian Chant and other things that went along with that were banned

St. Ignatius also banned Gregorian Chant, because it requires that the liturgy be celebrated in community. Ignatius wanted his Jesuits to be free of the trappings of community life. They were to be religious, with all of the rights of monks and friars, but with non of the obligations. Their only obligation is to live the vows and to pray the LOTH individually.

Trappists can use Gregorian Chant for the obvious reason. Trappists are Cistercians. Cistercians are Benedictines. Gregorian Chant is part of the Benedictine tradition.

Non chanted liturgy was never imposed on certain religious orders of men, because they are exempt from all of those rules. They are orders that make solemn vows. In the doctrine of the Council of Trent, any religious who makes solemn vows answers to the highest possible calling to holiness in the Church and is therefore exempt of all interference from the hierarchy and from law except that which the Pontiff himself imposes on them or that which the founder, with the permission of the Pontiff, has imposed on them.

This has not changed. Today, most people attend parishes run by diocesan priests. They rarely see an exempt religious, ordained or not and when they do, the subject does not come up. Not every religious is exempt. You have to belong to an order and you have to make solemn vows. If you belong to a religious congregation or if you make simple vows, you are not an exempt religious unless the Pontiff grants you that privilege. Everyone who meets the criteria gets the exemption automatically.

Banning Gregorian chant is not a big deal to those of us who belong to the old religious orders, because when we were founded, Gregorian chant was not universal. It was common in the Benedictine family. It spread after the Council of Trent when Pope Pius V promoted it. But Pope Pius V did not go back and overrule the founders that came before him. He left those rules and customs alone and they continue in place to this day.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PJM]

=iohanne;9120960]I’ve noticed many traditionalists tend to be more of a stickler at maintaining proper form and keeping their hands remaining like this throughout the whole liturgy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Albrecht_Dürer_Betende_Hände.jpg/170px-Albrecht_Dürer_Betende_Hände.jpg

From where did this originate? And why is there more of an emphasis on this form rather than the orans posture of prayer? And what about these hand postures?

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_223/1199380932568RJ3.jpg

Is it basically just a lazier version of the first? Or do they have two separate origins?

Piety dear friend is a PERSOANL expression between you and God. Anything that tends [as this dioes] to raise the awareness that we ARE in the VERY REAL PRESENCE of our God is a good thing. NOT mandated; but a personal expression and awareness of who we are; WHERE we are and WHO God is.

I AM GUILTY AS CHARGED:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[JReducation]

Piety dear friend is a PERSOANL expression between you and God. Anything that tends [as this dioes] to raise the awareness that we ARE in the VERY REAL PRESENCE of our God is a good thing. NOT mandated; but a personal expression and awareness of who we are; WHERE we are and WHO God is.

I AM GUILTY AS CHARGED:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Pat

What you said reminds me so much of St. John Baptiste de La Salle. He would fold his hands together and say to his brothers, “Let us remember that we’re in the holy presence of God.”



Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PJM]

=JReducation;9127277]What you said reminds me so much of St. John Baptiste de La Salle. He would fold his hands together and say to his brothers, “Let us remember that we’re in the holy presence of God.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Amen Borther!

Thanks for your Ministry!

Pat

 

[YoungCanRCMale]

I’ve noticed many traditionalists tend to be more of a stickler at maintaining proper form and keeping their hands remaining like this throughout the whole liturgy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Albrecht_Dürer_Betende_Hände.jpg/170px-Albrecht_Dürer_Betende_Hände.jpg

From where did this originate? And why is there more of an emphasis on this form rather than the orans posture of prayer? And what about these hand postures?

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_223/1199380932568RJ3.jpg

Is it basically just a lazier version of the first? Or do they have two separate origins?

Joanne, as an occasional EF/TLM altar server, I’ll give you what I have been taught. We keep our hands in the “Orans” position, with your right thumb over the left. As for the position itself, it is part of the tradition of the Latin Mass and does generally deal with being reverent.

As for the thumbs part of it, the thumbs make the shape of an X, but it is to symbolize the Cross which Christ was Crucified. Our hands when not holding something are to always be like this, with our eyes, somewhat facing down and just up enough to see ahead of us, so that we are always contemplating the Sacrifice our lord made at Calvary upon that Cross. That is to be our focus when not doing server duties with both our hands or using a missal on the altar.