Traditional Monastic "Foundations" in USA

  • Thread starter Thread starter nbhart
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nbhart

Guest
PAX

NOTICE: I ask all to please not respond with critiques of any religious communities, opinions on monastic observances, or canonical arguments.

Does anyone know of a traditional male Benedictine/Cistercian/Carthusian foundation in the US? By traditional I am referring to adherence to the traditional liturgy. I already am aware of Clear Creek Abbey (Solesme) in Hulbert, OK and Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery (SSPX) in Silver City, NM. I am also aware of other English speaking Benedictine monasteries outside the US founded by Americans. Even if it is only one man/priest looking to make a foundation, I would be interested. If you prefer not posting sensitive but pertinent information, please feel free to private message me. May God reward you!
 
The ones you mentioned are the only ones I am aware of. However, there is a traditionalist Carmelite monastery in Wyoming that looks pretty good. Not sure if it’s what you’re looking for, but it’s a contemplative community with a charism similar to the ones you mentioned.
 
Do a search for Trappist monastery kentucky. Tomas merton is a good name to search also.
Dominus Vobiscum
 
While not quite Benedictine/Cistercian/Carthusian, the Norbertine Canons in Orange County are super traditional. They don’t adhere fully to the EF, but I believe the celebrate it often, as well as very reverent OF Masses.

They’re certainly worth checking out. They’re currently in the process of building a beautiful new abbey
 
I was fortunate to spend some time there back in the late 70s when I was looking into a contemplative vocation possibility.
Very wonderful place. referring of course to the Carthusian monastery in Vermont.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they are three Benedictine monasteries that belong to the English Benedictine Congregation. However, they do not correspond with what the OP is looking for.
 
I am not sure how they don’t correspond to what the OP is looking for. They are male Benedictine foundations in the US, albeit part of a congregation based in England. I have been to some of their liturgies (in England) and they seemed “traditional” in the sense that they observe the Benedictine liturgy, including the Roman Rite Mass. Is “traditional liturgy” code for “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in Latin”?
 
nbhart said:
Does anyone know of a traditional male Benedictine/Cistercian/Carthusian foundation in the US? By traditional I am referring to adherence to the traditional liturgy.
Click to expand...
The third sentence of the OP answers that as noted above.
 
nbhart said:
By traditional I am referring to adherence to the traditional liturgy.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I referred to in my response. My question was exactly how “traditional” liturgy is defined. Does “traditional” mean exclusive use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in Latin? Or are there uses of the Ordinary Form and/or vernacular which are still deemed traditional? The question is more complicated in the context of monastic communities, as Carthusians use the Carthusian Rite. Also, liturgy does not just mean the Mass. How does one define “traditional liturgy” when applied to the Liturgy of the Hours? It is still unclear to me why the English Benedictines are not “traditional”. Is it because they use the Ordinary Form? Or because they use English? Or is it the manner in which they conduct the liturgy and not the text itself?
 
If I remember correctly the Carthusian Rite is one which survived Trent (along with the Dominican Rite, etc); however, I am not familiar with either of them. I can’t speak for the OP, only that he used the word “traditional” and as it is almost always used in the forums, that means the EF - which in turn means in Latin (among other things). This thread is only a day old, so perhaps he will join in again to distinguish what he means.

As to the LOTH, I know that Benedictines have their own office separate and distinct from the LOTH, but I cannot say if or how it may have changed after Vatican 2. I know my local abbey recites in English and my recollection is that before Vatican 2 (and perhaps for a period afterward) they recited in Latin; likewise our local Trappist abbey.However, I don’t know in either circumstance if there were changes made beyond moving to the vernacular - the possible exception being that in some circumstances, all of the community was included in saying the Office, not just choir monks. Again, I am venturing out on grounds I am not particularly familiar with.

The local poster with the most knowledge of the Benedictines is Ora Labora, a Canadian who is far more involved with both his local Benedictine community and their Office, and Gregorian chant. You might want to PM him. He may be able to answer more of your questions.
 
do_justly_love_mercy said:
I am not sure how they don’t correspond to what the OP is looking for. They are male Benedictine foundations in the US, albeit part of a congregation based in England. I have been to some of their liturgies (in England) and they seemed “traditional” in the sense that they observe the Benedictine liturgy, including the Roman Rite Mass. Is “traditional liturgy” code for “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in Latin”?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a sort of code for what Pope Benedict XVI said we should be calling the Extraordinary Form. I suspect the OP wants at least communities that celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form and probably that celebrate the Office according to the pre-Vatican II Brevarium Monasticum.
 
I apologize that I was not clear. I did not intend to code my message for if anything it seems “Extraordinary Form” is more a code for the Traditional Mass than vice versa. I wrongly assumed that posting in the “Traditional Catholicism” tab would orient the discussion to things pre-Pauline reforms. So to be direct, I am inquiring about the 1962 Missal, Traditional Latin Mass, Extraordinary Use/Form/Expression of the Roman Rite, Usus Antiquior, Ancient Form, Tridentine Mass, Mass of Pius V, Pre-Conciliar Mass, “earlier liturgical tradition,” Gregorian Rite, Classical Roman Liturgy, etc.

I would not regard the Ordinary Form as traditional within the respect that it is a “new rite” (according to Benedict XVI) and it seems odd to call something “tradition” which is only 50 years old in comparison to something which is over 1000 years old no matter how traditionally/conservatively/reverently/hermeneuticly continuously it is celebrated.

Other things which I would not exactly consider traditional (however licit) would be concelebration of Mass, versus populum celebration, vernacular ordinary of the mass, extraordinary ministers of holy communion, reception of Holy Communion on the hand, profane (i.e. not explicitly sacred) music, girl altar boys, an abbreviated psalter, and abolishing the office of Prime just to name a few.

NB: The Carthusian Rite was “brought up to date” with abbreviated canons, concelebration, use of the vernacular, versus populum, etc. But again though, I’m not here to debate these things so please do not argue about how traditional this or that community is or is not.
 
nbhart said:
I apologize that I was not clear. I did not intend to code my message for if anything it seems “Extraordinary Form” is more a code for the Traditional Mass than vice versa. I wrongly assumed that posting in the “Traditional Catholicism” tab would orient the discussion to things pre-Pauline reforms. So to be direct, I am inquiring about the 1962 Missal, Traditional Latin Mass, Extraordinary Use/Form/Expression of the Roman Rite, Usus Antiquior, Ancient Form, Tridentine Mass, Mass of Pius V, Pre-Conciliar Mass, “earlier liturgical tradition,” Gregorian Rite, Classical Roman Liturgy, etc.
Click to expand...
Calling it the Extraordinary Form, the name Holy Mother Church gives it, is all that’s required. Even if it’s not what one intends using names like the ‘Traditional’, etc. can suggest an air of superiority. The Church makes it quite explicit that both uses of the Roman Rite are the official and valid liturgy of the Church. Having a preference for one form or the other is not a problem but for the sake of charity I believe we ought to take great care we do not imply or appear to imply the Extraordinary Form is better than the Ordinary one. Nor, do I think it correct to say one is only traditional if you do things in a manner that pre-dates the pontificate of St. Paul VI.
nbhart said:
I would not regard the Ordinary Form as traditional within the respect that it is a “new rite” (according to Benedict XVI) and it seems odd to call something “tradition” which is only 50 years old in comparison to something which is over 1000 years old no matter how traditionally/conservatively/reverently/hermeneuticly continuously it is celebrated.
Click to expand...
It may seem that way to you and the way it seems to you could depend on your age and experience. I am too young to know any different and it is not very often that I get to say I too young these days 😀 I think the Ordinary Form is part of the tradition of the Catholic Church. Not all parts of the Extraordinary Form have the great antiquity you mention.
nbhart said:
Other things which I would not exactly consider traditional (however licit ) would be concelebration of Mass, versus populum celebration, vernacular ordinary of the mass, extraordinary ministers of holy communion, reception of Holy Communion on the hand, profane (i.e. not explicitly sacred) music, girl altar boys, an abbreviated psalter, and abolishing the office of Prime just to name a few.
Click to expand...
Obviously, you have a very clear preference for how the Church may have been in say 1956 just to pluck a year out of my head. There is nothing wrong in that. However, I do not think it right to just about see post-Vatican II changes to the liturgy as tolerable. However, I do not think it is so much all the changes, which some people find very difficult, but that there seems to be, I feel anyway, a loss of awe and respect for the sacred.
 
TomH1 said:
Obviously, you have a very clear preference for how the Church may have been in say 1956 just to pluck a year out of my head.
Click to expand...
This is an important point. Sorry for missing the “call” earlier, I am actually on a month-long retreat at my abbey and with 7 offices a day, plus work daily (library, porter’s desk, translation project) I have been very busy.

To the OP. If you are discerning to a Benedictine monastery, be careful how you define “tradition”. Because a lot of what you describe as tradition are not things that were classically in the Benedictine tradition. Daily Mass did not exist in the time of St. Benedict. The abbot did not have to be a priest (he does now). In the time that the pre-Conciliar Office and Mass were celebrated (say 1950s), monks were divided into choir monks and lay brothers. St. Benedict never made that distinction. The Council returned Benedictines to only one kind of monk: professed. They can be, or need not be, priests but other than sacerdotal duties they’re equals. Versus populum has a long tradition in monasticism because of the community dimension.

So any notion of “tradition” boiling down to this or that practice, is in fact as Tom points out, simply a point in time.

The important point in joining a monastery is not what form of liturgy they use. It is being attracted to their charism, and every community has one. You will spend 3-5 hours a day in liturgy, but the rest you are living in a community with other men. How you fit is important. So important, that you don’t get to decide if you can profess or not. They do, if they feel you’ve properly discerned and you’re a good fit.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
The local poster with the most knowledge of the Benedictines is Ora Labora, a Canadian who is far more involved with both his local Benedictine community and their Office, and Gregorian chant. You might want to PM him. He may be able to answer more of your questions.
Click to expand...
The Office is another area to consider. St. Benedict proposed an Office structure and psalm cursus which he describes in great detail. Then he throws in an escape clause: a monastery is free to have their own schema as long as all psalms are recited in a week. My abbey uses this clause, to use a modern post-Conciliar Office that does just that. Is that “traditional”? Well it is faithful to a 1500 y.o. rule!

There are in fact 4 main post-Conciliar schemas: A, which is identical to St. Benedict’s original but adapted to the modern liturgical year. B, which our abbey uses, all 150 psalms in a week, and C and D, every two weeks. Some abbeys have home-grown schemas, and some with extensive apostolates, used the 4-week LOTH. With in schemas A and B there are sub-schemas (for instance depending on whether Prime is said or not, and if not how its psalms are distributed).

Our abbey also does Lauds, Vespers and the Mass in Latin Gregorian chant. The chants of the 1974 Graduale Romanum are identical to the original Vatican Edition of 1908, just distributed differently for the A-B-C yearly cycles (and some Neo-gregorian pieces for new feasts like Christ the King). I would say that is a very traditional praxis, as are many of their other ritual observances, both liturgical and para-liturgical.

So I think defining “traditional” to merely the EF Mass is highly reductive and does not account for the many monastic observances that evolved over time and those that have remained timeless.

If you’re discerning for a monastery, what is important to me is not the Mass tradition you’re joining but the monastic tradition you are joining. Get the latter wrong, and you will be miserable for a very long time. Getting it right, will have more to do with your fit in the community than the liturgy.

That said, Clear Creek (Solesmes Congregation) is the only community of men that I know in full communion that uses the EF Mass, but I understand from our abbot they have included some post-conciliar adaptations. So unless you go to Europe you won’t find exactly what you are looking for.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top