R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
A most interesting point, ProV.
- Status
A
AdDeum
Guest
If there is to be a hybrid Mass, I think I could get my head around a couple of things from the Novus Ordo…
1). The 3 yr cycle of readings
2). The Memorial Acclamation
3). Even an additional Eucharistic Prayer… Though this point is probably moot, because I think the canon ought to be silent.
BUT… I don’t think Mass should be said facing the people. There should be a RESTORATION of the High Altar, and Mass said facing Jesus in the Tabernacle… After all, when the priest is saying these prayers, is he praying to us or to God and Jesus?
I know there are undoubtedly some who will disagree with me… But these are my opinions. Either way, it doesn’t matter because I am certainly no theologian and am just a simple layman… Albeit a layman who loves his faith.
M
manwithblackhat
Guest
There is no such plan, only rumors conjured up by the CFN crowd, based on information that is only partially correct, and nurtured by conniving curialists. There are already four prefaces added to the 1962 Missal in the appendix, including for Advent, the Blessed Sacrament, and the Dedication of a Church. (Darn, I forget the fourth.) All are of longstanding and noble origin, comparable to those already there, as opposed to recent compositions. There are also additional saints to be added, as has already been done in an appendix in the Benzinger edition. (Anybody have a problem with Padre Pio? Saint Faustina?) None of this is either earth-shattering, without precedent, or even remotely comparable to what happened in 1964-65.
The “reform of the reform” at least as the Holy Father understands it (as he is the one who coined the phrase), consists of a re-examination of Sacrosanctum Concilium, to determine what the Council Fathers actually intended with regard to the reform of the liturgy. It can be argued successfully that very little if anything was to actually change with the Order of Mass itself.
I stand corrected, but only to a point. By “reform,” I was also referring to battles against the great heresies, which were usually started by clerics, and objected to by most of the laity. As to the reformers themselves, Francis was a layman who didn’t wait for ecclesiastical approval before assembling his band of brothers. He also began preaching without any approval, and was never ordained to the priesthood. (It is said that he was a deacon upon his death, but there is some dispute on this.) Ignatius was a layman in 1522 when he began his personal reform and his ascetic life, and to gather his companions. He was not ordained until 1537.
Indeed. The wilderness IS “God’s country,” including the Blue Ridge.
By the way, stay tuned for my commentary on deaconesses, coming up in the next week. I guarantee a few surprises, and conformity to the mind of the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
Who is this crowd?
Not quite. Our Holy Father never assembled any brothers before receiving permission. The first 10 brothers came as volunteers to help him in his work of restoring chapels and to embrace the penitential life. They were not preachers. They came very gradually over a period of several years. In 1209, Bishop Guido of Assisi encouraged Francis to write a rule for his brothers and to have the Holy Father approve it. He did so and went to Pope Innocent. Pope Innocent gave the rule verbal approval. The final approval of the rule was given by Pope Hononrius in 1223 with a papal bull.
It was after 1209 that the friars began to preach. They never preached before then. From 1209 forward, they were no longer part of the laity. They were consecrated religious. They made the profession of vows before Pope Innocent on April 20, 1209. That’s considered the official date for the foundation of the Franciscan family.
Francis was never a priest, because the Franciscan family is not a family of priests. We never have been. We have always had priests. Among the first 10 brothers who went with him to see Pope Innocent were two priests, Brother Giles and Brother Sylvester. The pope chose to allow Francis to be the superior general, because it was an order of brothers. In orders of priests, even if they have brothers, the superior general must always be a priest. This is not our case. There was no need for Francis to be a priest. That does not mean that he was a layman when he was preaching. He was a religious. To this day, many of our brothers preach, we need not be priests. One needs to be educated in philosophy and theology to get permission to do so. I do a lot of preaching.
This is no longer in dispute. Francis was ordained a deacon sometime between 1223 and 1225, the year before his death. We know this because he was granting preaching faculties to the priests. Only a cleric can grant preaching faculties and faculties to hear confessions. A superior who is a non-cleric can grant permission, not faculties.
Again, before they began their preaching ministry they made solemn vows. They were canonically religious.
He was ordained later. During the early stages of the Society of Jesus they were very similar to the Franciscans. People often thought they were mendicants. They were religious who were dedicated to a life of poverty among the poor.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
manwithblackhat
Guest
Obviously, I am referring to Catholic Family News, one of those which is spreading the rumor, and those of their ilk. Yes, I know at least one cardinal was interviewed and has claimed this. He is not the only man in the Sacred College with an opinion, and Mr Vennari is not the only one who knows anybody with contacts in Rome.
I read extensively on both Saints Francis and Ignatius before writing my response. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford Dictionary of the Saints, Ignatius of Loyola: The Pilgrim Saint, among others.) I stand by my findings, and will not engage this particular issue further.
But I do thank you, all of you in this venue, for reading my work, which was reviewed with a fine-toothed comb by an assistant with a masters in theology, and extensive background in hagiography.
Br. JR, FFV
P
ProVobis
Guest
I guess it depends on which prayers.
There are the submissa voce (in a low tone) prayers which could be easily argued that are only between the priest and God; the joint priest-people prayers (Gloria, Pater Noster, Credo), and the Epistle and Gospel, which are read to the people. (In the EF, of course, the Gospel is read symbolically to the “barbarians to the north.”)
J
JReducation
Guest
If you want to know about St. Francis, go to the Franciscans and the Franciscan archives in Assisi. The encyclopedias are not reliable. We have found many mistakes in their articles. This is coming from one who has an STD in Franciscan Studies.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
jwinch2
Guest
Interesting article overall but there were some concerning aspects of it as well. In particular, the manner in which Pope Benedict’s writings and thoughts were discussed. Pope Benedict, in addition to being the Pope, is probably one of the top theologians in the world and one who happened to be at Vatican II. He has studied the liturgy extensively.
The author, in my view, comes across as more than a little arrogant.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is why I have said so many times that there are elements in the Trad Movement that ruin it for the moderate traditionalist. Some of them are very arrogant and others go beyond arrogant to disrespectful. Common’ give me a break, for the author of this article to put himself at the same level of intelligence as Cardinal Ratizinger is like like a high school math student challenging Albert Einstein. One has to know one’s place in the world.
I studied under Cardinal Ratzinger. The man is incredibly intelligent. Allegedly, those of us who took is course on Theology of History were the cream of the crop in our class. Guess what? Compared to Dr.Ratzinger, the cream curdled.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
jwinch2
Guest
Brother JR has been a Franciscan Brother for decades, started his own new community and was then elected as their superior by his Brothers. He has his Doctorate in Sacred Theology and teaches at the Seminary in his local diocese. As he mentioned above, he studied directly under Cardinal Ratzinger.
In addition to all of that, he is universally loved here on CAF and is regarded as one of the most knowledgeable persons on this forum, including the Catholic Answers apologetics staff. In fact, due to his thousands of posts where he is consistently patient, charitable, and generous with his knowledge to fellow members, and his many years of service to the Church, I can’t think of anyone more respected on the entire forum.
He is far too humble to mention most of that, particularly the second part, but you may wish to consider that in your conversation and, since you seem to have an interest in the topic, try to learn something from him.
I know you are new to the forum so there is hardly any way you could have known most of that so please just consider this a neighborly heads up.
Peace,
J
jwinch2
Guest
Well stated Brother. I often sympathize with the traditionalist position in terms of wishing them to have a liturgy which they find fulfilling and in support of traditional teaching and spirituality. However, whenever I find myself going much beyond that level of support something like this comes along and reminds me why certain traditionalists often leave me with a bad taste.
Peace,
D
Denise1957
Guest
I’ll look forward to reading this commentary mentioned above next week. Thanks for your comments and further explanations of your article on this thread. God bless!
M
manwithblackhat
Guest
Well, thanks, I’ll check that out.
Obviously I didn’t just check encyclopedias, okay? Even as a child I knew quite a bit about saints. And without favoring one side or the other, I would assume that Franciscans are inclined to believe he was a deacon upon his passing, while others might be more skeptical. After all, this isn’t very well known. (Most people assume he was a priest.) And I tend to doubt that he got canonical approval the day after he started rebuilding San Damiano. More likely a few others joined him before he could convince anyone he was the real deal. That would only make sense.
But while the issue of credit towards the great reforms of the Church support my point, it is not contingent upon it. It still comes down to personal reform (for which neither Francis nor Ignatius needed prior approval), and the responsibility of the faithful in wanting the Traditional Mass badly enough, as opposed to waiting for the local bishop to think of it first. We all know the track record there. So does the Holy Father, which explains the motu proprio.
Thanks again.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
As a Canadian, I really don’t think our American brethren down south really need such a symbol! Though I’m sure it’s good for a chuckle
J
JReducation
Guest
There is solid evidence that he was a deacon. It is he who approves the ordination of Brother Anthony of Padua and he who gives Anthony faculties. Only a superior who is a cleric can grant faculties.
Not well known by whom?
This is true. The truth is that he was never a priest.
History does not say this. In fact, he does not get canonical approval until 1223. In 1209, he and the first brothers profess vows before Pope Innnocent III. By today’s laws, they would be a public association of the Christian Faithful, not an order. In those days, it was called a Pious Union. The point is that the brothers were not involved in the reform of the Church until long after 1209. Up to that time, they were penitents, not preachers. One of the qualities that makes Francis a very special person is that he did nothing without the permission of the Church. He wrote as much in his Testament.
The is an incorrect assumption. Francis never tried to prove to anyone that he was “the real thing.” He did not want followers. He never wanted to be a religious nor to be the founder of a religious family. Br. John was the first to come. Little is known about him. He died or left. We don’t know. The first to come and stay was Br. Bernard of Quintavalle. But Br. Bernard and Francis were not preachers or reformers of any kind, other than out to reform their own lives. There is an assumption here that they embarked on some mission of reform without prior permission. This is an incorrect assumption.
No one needs approval to engage in personal reform, only to engage in active ministry of reform.
Here is the difference between some of the people who want the EF and Francis of Assisi. Observe what I have bolded. Francis would never make such a comment about the bishops of his day, even though we know their track record. In fact, his teaching was that they were to be obeyed, respected, loved and never a negative word was to be said about them. No one was to do anything contrary to the will of the bishop. He left this in writing to this day. There is no way that we can change it. The rule has been sealed by Pope Honorius III. It would take another Motu Proprio to change any part of it. As it stands right now, if we were to undertake any activity without the bishop’s consent, even though SP allows for the EF, the rule would not allow it. SP says that religious communities must follow their Proper Law.
To compare Francis of Assisi and Ignatius of Loyola with the Traditionalist Movement is not a good comparison. These men never found themselves in an antagonistic relationship with the bishops of the diocese where they were. When a bishop did not want them, they simply left. They were not always welcome by the bishops. Yet, nowhere in their writing or what has been written about them is there any indication that they engaged in making comments about the bishops as you have made.
They were reformers, but they were also submissive sons of the Church. Ignatius of Loyola founded the Society of Jesus on the same principles as the mendicant orders. Realizing that the mendicant paradigm would not work, he asked the Holy See to approve the statutes that he wrote, which included multiple exceptions to the norm for religious in solemn vows. He got to keep the benefits of solemn vows without the obligations that come with it. But he never did it on his own. He asked for the approval and waited. Not a single Jesuit was sent on mission until the statutes were approved.
We have to be careful not to turn Summorum Pontificum into a statement about the bishops. That’s not the case at all. Summorum Pontificum was part of the agreement between the Holy See and the SSPX to open the lines toward a reconciliation. It was not an attempt to ride over the bishops. The bishops were not involved with the SSPX, nor were the bishops ever consulted about the EF. Bl. John Paul had already issued the indult, this too without the prior knowledge of the bishops. It came as much as a surprise to them as it did to anyone else.
While it is true that not all of the bishops are fond of the Ef, it is not true that the bishops oppose it either. That would be a big generalization. Therefore, SP was not the Pope’s way of getting around the bishops. It was, as he said, an attempt to clarify a misunderstanding concerning the EF . . . a misunderstanding that had become an obstacle in the dialogue between the Holy See and the SSPX.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
ProVobis
Guest
If the only change were to preach the gospel ad orientem, that’s one change I woudn’t object to. At least I wouldn’t have to take out a loan to buy a new set of handmissals.As a Canadian, I really don’t think our American brethren down south really need such a symbol! Though I’m sure it’s good for a chuckle
M
manwithblackhat
Guest
… which is why I never made it. I was referring to the notion of personal reform in general, as prerequisite before public reform. This would imply submission to legitimate authority, which is challenged NOWHERE in my article. Neither are Saints Francis or Ignatius mentioned in the article.
… which did not happen with my article. And it is an undisputed, verifiable, measurable fact, that some bishops were not generous in the application of either the 1984 or 1988 indult (and yes, I’ve read whatever there is to know about, including what a surprise it was). And while the prospect of reconciliation with the SSPX was a major factor in the motu proprio, it was not the only one.
… and none were made. Even in this forum, only one example of a bishop’s resistance was mentioned. My article also acknowledged instances elsewhere, but was devoted to factors of a practical nature. Whatever the SSPX negotiations had to do with it, the motu proprio did in fact remove the need for a bishop’s permission to celebrate the Traditional Mass. The article was confined to that, and your knowledge of the saints, while superior to mine, has little to do with the article itself.
M
manwithblackhat
Guest
I entered this forum to discuss my article, not hagiography, my reluctant participation thereof notwithstanding. That our Franciscan brother has demonstrated his knowledge of the subject is admirable, and well-established. I will confine myself to the article that I wrote, which did not attempt to use any saints (other than John Chrysostom through one of his sermons) to make its point.
I work as a Senior Master of Ceremonies in a parish, at the discretion of its pastor. In the training of servers and Associate MCs, and in tending to the needs of the celebrant, I am in no position to challenge or otherwise disregard Church authority.
Neither did my article.
I work as a Senior Master of Ceremonies in a parish, at the discretion of its pastor. In the training of servers and Associate MCs, and in tending to the needs of the celebrant, I am in no position to challenge or otherwise disregard Church authority.
Neither did my article.
J
JReducation
Guest
I was not speaking to your article. I was simply responding to the comments on your posts.
As far as the bishops facilitating the EF, I believe that one has to be patient. Whenever there is a major move in one direction, history has proven that the pendulum will move to the opposite direction. It’s natural law. Eventually, it will settle in the middle.
I believe that SP allows for the pendulum to move. It does not need much help from the bishops. It’s going to happen on its own. We see it everywhere. The bishops cannot stop it from happening. Hermaneutic of Reform has a life of its own. Even places where there are difficulties, none of them are going to last forever. It’s not natural. Often, we’re impatient.
I also believe that even if we were to see the EF as dominant tomorrow, that would not be the end of the story. That would just be the other side of the the arc. The pendulum will settle in the middle. There is much more to come. There will never be a completely EF or OF Latin Church. Either we will have two forms or we will have a hybrid. Only time will tell.
I’ve seen it happen with the young men whom I teach at the seminary. When they first arrive they are excited about the EF. The program includes training in the EF. In addition, there are free workshops on the EF for deacons and priests who are already ordained and never learned it in the seminary. What I’ve seen is that by the time of ordination not a single one of those seminarians who were excited about the EF wants to celebrate it.
We have a number of priests who celebrate it, including the Archbishop. None of them are the newly ordained. They are all the 10 year plus generation, what I call the John Paul II generation. They’re the ones celebrating the EF.
It’s almost as if those who live in a diocese where there is resistance want it more than those who live in a diocese where the door is wide open to it. It’s like the forbidden fruit. When it’s no longer forbidden, it does not seem as attractive.
Don’t get me wrong, this is not to say that the EF does not have an intrinsic value. I believe that it does. I see that those who live where there are opportunities for it, don’t jump at it as some people seemed to think would happen.
In my own community, we have three ordained brothers. When we were writing the constitutions, the question of liturgy came up. Of course, there are limits, because part of the Franciscan renewal is to return to the 13th century or as close as possible. There are certain things that we could not do with the liturgy, such as introduce Gregorian chant, being as it was prohibited by Francis and Clare. But the question came up whether we wanted to make the EF the ordinary form for the community. The unanimous vote was against the idea.
The decision was to use either the Ordinary Form or the Roman-Franciscan Form. The Extraordinary Form can only be celebrated with the permission of the superior, after a vote from the community. The brother who wants to celebrate it has to pass two gates. He has to get the superior’s permission to present it to the community. It cannot become the conventual norm.
Again, I felt that when there was an opportunity to take hold of the EF, then those who had previously wanted to see it happen, didn’t jump at it. I must admit that I was a bit surprised. We have one brother who knows how to celebrate it. He truly loves it. But he’s very comfortable with the OF as well. He does not push it. On special occasions, I ask him to celebrate it.
I guess my thinking is that as the EF becomes more available, less people are going to jump at it, causing the pendulum to swing to the middle where we will have two forms side by side or a hybrid. My guess is that a hybrid is a given. It’s just a matter of time.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
If you scroll back to one of my earlier posts, I truly liked your article. I commented especially on your observation about attitudes. I thought that was a point well made and a necessary one too.
By the way, I did send a link to several friends.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status