There are religious that celebrate the EF as well.
Of course there are, nothing that I said contradicts that. But it is a fact that a Religious superior can prohibit his men from celebrating the EF, and if that religious priest is serving a parish then he won’t be able to celebrate an EF for them.
I was just pointing out how religious can effect us secular people. We don’t live in totally separate bubbles.
I’m not arguing that at all. I’m simply saying that pointing out that religious were denied their traditions prior to Vatican II has little to do with whether or not the diocesan parish I attend as a secular layman should use traditions that were part of diocesan parish life prior to Vatican II.
Unless your parish is served by religious priests, as many parish’s are.
Who knows too, maybe some of your secular traditions come from religious traditions
And God be praised for that Franciscan “tradition” as it is a perfect example of lex orendi, lex credendi.
And the Benedictine tradition of a separate Blessed Sacrament Chapel is equally valid.
No disagreement here. But again, I’m not sure why this means that every time we are discussing the traditional practices of the Latin Rite in secular parishes someone has to toss in that some religious somewhere did it or does it differently. If there were threads discussing Franciscan traditions, for example, wouldn’t it become a bit tiresome if someone constantly pointed out that the Carthusians do it differently (with the subtle or not-so-subtle hint that the way the Carthusians do it should be implemented in Franciscan life?)
But what
is secular spirituality? Does it exist, and how many traditions in secular spirituality exist? And how many have been influenced by religious spirituality?
See, we’re not so disconnected.
I’ll agree on principle, with the standard disclaimer that there are lots of factors and variables at play in your statement.
I admit that I almost missed the word “orthodox” in my statement. Now that would have been a good example of an invalid statement.
It is important to note, however, that religious are living a life devoted to a Rule which guides and informs them every single day. They are better formed and better informed than most laity. Us lay folk don’t have that type of support and constant spiritual direction. It was provided for us in the very structured and ornate rituals of our Rite. The simplification of those rituals in the manner of the Benedictines and Franciscans doesn’t take into account the fact that the lex orendi lex credendi is particularly important for lay people who don’t spend 6+ hours a day praying the Divine Office, etc. We don’t have a Rule and a structure and all the things that make a religious life religious. We need other supports, and the traditional liturgical and devotional practices pre-VII were meant to fill that.
And many others have been developed since VII.
A great example is the simplified Divine Office, which makes it much easier for people like me to pray it, and that is a great devotion (and liturgy) to fill those non-Mass times.
It is equally disingenuous to put the laity and the religious in the same realm.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean there’s no influence (and, as has been said, it’s a one way influence from Religious to secular).
Actually, their job is to follow their Rule. Some religious have basically no interaction with the laity. Check out the almost 100% isolation of the Carthusians.
How many times do we see complaints on these forms that Religious should be witnessing to the world (
hint, it’s usually in a thread on habits)? Part of their life is to witness.
But what if “who they are” is to be in that bubble apart from us? See my comment on the Carthusians above.
Some are, most aren’t.
One last practical note. If the religious are going to have a direct influence on the way parish life is conducted, well, then, which religious order would that be? Shall we all become Franciscans? Benedictines? Dominicans? Trappists? Carthusians? Carmelites?
Now that’s a good question.
I think the only thing I could say is that if a parish has been entrusted to a certain group, then that group should be able to influence that parish.
Or should we absorb a little here and there from each order that will best help the laity achieve a life of holiness and sanctity and ultimate save our souls? I say the latter. Every religious practice is NOT appropriate for lay people; therefore, much more needs to be said in a discussion over a practice for lay people than simply “the Benedictines do it this way.” It may be wonderful and perfect for them to do so, but not beneficial for the laity. We would have discuss the individual practice rather than whole-sale accept it. Again, this is practical – when religious order practices are contrary, which do we as the laity accept?
I agree. Individual people can pick and choose different pieces that they find helps them on their faith journey. For some people that means they gravitate towards the EF, but for many people they grow through participating in the OF. As far as it is possible, I hope both groups can get what they need.
