Cradle Catholic vs Converts?
I hope it’s not that. I would hate to see two churches across the street from each other:
St. Mary of the Snow Craddle Catholic Church and St. Mary of the Sea Convert Catholic Church
When I made this comment was because I don’t see all the abuses that the poster spoke about. These things have happened, but certainly not all in one parish and not as the usual thing. Those are not common.
I’ve been a Catholic for 40 years and a religious for over 15 years. I have never seen these things happen on a daily basis. One has to say that these things have happened, but one has to also say that they are not the everyday situation.
In addition, there are changes that have been authorized by the proper authorities; therefore, it’s not wrong to implement them. It’s certainly not an obligation, but not a breach of law either.
If you watch our friars celebrate mass on EWTN you will notice that we celbrate the Ordinary Form, we don’t have communion rails, we don’t kneel for communion, we don’t have two altars on the side, we don’t have a crucifix front and center (aside from the small one on the altar), we do have lay brothers do the readings and not all of our priests celebrate mass. But one must ask why not?
The answer is simple. There are indults that were granted to many religious orders. These indults are centuries old. Let me just lay out a few. Though I have done so before.
- Trappists have never allowed themselves to have statues, paintings or any kind of iconograhpy in their churches. They must alwasy be white-washed, with a simple cross, not a crucifix. This was introduced by St. Bernard of Cleirveaux.
- Franciscans have never had kneelers, communion rails and have never knelt for communion or for the Eucharistic prayer. This was introduced by St. Francis of Assisi to avoid singularizing priests. The idea was that priests are still brothers. He never allowed mass or the Divine Office to be chanted. Gregorian chant was not allowed by St. Francis. It did not enter our houses until Vatican II allowed it. Kneeling for the Eucharistic prayer was introduced by Vatican II. We did not do this before. It was an option and the superior of the house set the rule according to the local culture. This was the case for 800 years.
- The Carmelites never allowed all of their priests to celebrate mass, unless it was necessary, such as a parish with many masses. Other than that, only one priest could celebrate the mass and everyone else attended.
- Monks and friars have always been allowed to receive communion in the hand. It was not done in parishes, because it was only meant for the conventual mass. But it was done where the laity were not able to see it. It was really up to the Abbot or the Prior to determine the practice for his house, again it depended on local culture. The customs varied from one region to another within the same order.
- The reason that religious men did not have communion rails, aside from the fact that we did not use them was that our founders believed that the entire church or chapel was sacred space. So in many orders you did not have them, nor did you have kneelers. You stood and sat.
- Benedictines never had the tabernacle in the church. The tabernacle was in the choir where teh monks prayed. The church was only used for mass and not used the rest of the day. The choir was in use 24/7. When the laity came to mass at the local church, which was usually attached to a Cathedral parish or a monastery, they did not have a tabernacle. That was started by St. Francis of Assisi in 1221. The custom spread because the order spread very quicly to every part of Europe.
My point is that many of the things that people find so horrible, have never been considered horrible by the Church or they would not have allowed them for hundreds of years. These practices have become more available to the laity. Maybe the laity was not ready for them or may still not be ready for them. But that does not make the practice evil. What it means is that we must make a better effort to catechize the laity and explain where this comes from and why men like Benedict, Albert, Francis, Dominic and Bernard made changes to the liturgy and why the Holy See approved them.
In additon, the Tridentine mass has not been the only mass celebrated in the Roman Church. The Roman Church has several Latin Rites that have been used alongside the Tridentine form.
The entire Roman Church does not follow the same liturgical calendar either. If you attend mass at a Franciscan house, you will notice that we celebrate the mass of the day, only when there is no Franciscan celebration for that day. Otherwise, the Franciscan missal and lectionary trump the Roman Missal and Lectionary. Several religious orders have their own missals and lectionaries with their own calendar, feasts, solemnities, readings, prayers and rituals. The laity is non the wiser, because if you belong to a Dominican parish, you have no idea what is happening up the street at the diocesna parish that follows the Roman missal and Roman lectionary.
I once had a person ask me why the priest on EWTN was wearing white on a green day. I though the question was worded funny. But I understood what the question was about. I explained that it was a Franciscan solemnity. The person realized that there had been three readings, a gloria and different prayers throughout the mass. I told the person that if they wanted to see real pomp and circumstance they should attend the Transitus. It’s a triduum in homor of the passing of St. Francis and it is almost identical to the Easter Triduum.
Before we get all upset, let’s first ask why? Many things have been carried outside the enclosure of religious men into the parish with the laity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
