Traditionalist Seminaries & Religious Orders

[JReducation]

I think you are right on here.

The issue I have is that when ever someone asks about the Carmelites here at CAF the first group named is usually the Carmelite Monks of Wyoming.

I believe that the average lay person in the pews does not know about the canonical and historical differences in the forms of religious life, for one. They here the name Cermelite, and they assume that all Carmelites belong to the same order. They certainly form one great spiritual family and are a gift to the Church, but they are not structured as one order. But most people do not understand this.

This often happens with the Franciscans as well. There is the Francisan Order which consists in what we call different obediences: OFM, OFM Cap, OFM Conv, TOR, OSF, and SFO. These constitute the Franciscan Order. Then there are the independent Franciscan Congregtaions of diocesan right, which are not part of the Order, but follow the rule of the Order. Our international council of Franciscan Ministers General recognizes them as part of the family, even though they are not canonically part of the Order, for example, the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word. They are not part of the order. They are a diocesan congregation our of the Diocese of Burmingham. They cannot become part of the order, because they chose to be a congregation of priests. All Franciscan communities must be lay, not clerical. But we do not deny their Franciscan spirit and their membership in the family, just ot in the order.

But the average Catholic does not understand these differences or the reasons that they are important. I had someone on CAF blast me because the EWTN friars as they are often called were denied membership in the Order because of their clerical status. This person wanted to know why Franciscans were anti-priests. Nothing can be further from the truth. We have thousands of ordained friars. It’s an issue of who can govern. But people don’t know these things.

Often, people think that they are being traditional when in fact, they are going against tradtion. For example, pushing for more ordained Franciscans is against tradition. Pushing for Carmelite Monks is against tradition. Carmelites are not monks. Pushing for Benedictine priests in parishes is against tradition. Benedictines are monks and so forth.

But people bring up the Carmelites Monks because they use the EF exclusively. This feeds their idea of tradition, while not noticing that this is really a very new way of living out the Carmelite vocation. I have nothing against them. They seem very orthodox to me. But I know enough to remember that a Carmelite can be a hermit, not a monk.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But people bring up the Carmelites Monks because they use the EF exclusively. This feeds their idea of tradition, while not noticing that this is really a very new way of living out the Carmelite vocation. I have nothing against them. They seem very orthodox to me. But I know enough to remember that a Carmelite can be a hermit, not a monk.

It is a very new way of living for Carmelites as we Carmelites never celebrated the EF (except when we staffed parishes for a diocese) as until the 1970’s we had our own rite.

 

[malphono]

It is a very new way of living for Carmelites as we Carmelites never celebrated the EF (except when we staffed parishes for a diocese) as until the 1970’s we had our own rite.

Yes, it is correct to say that that the O.Carm did not offer the EF. While I have no intention to reopen the argument about the Carmelite usage, I have to note one thing: Even where Carmelites were charged with a parish, the missale carmelitanum was used. The same was (is) true for the Dominicans.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, it is correct to say that that the O.Carm did not offer the EF. While I have no intention to reopen the argument about the Carmelite usage, I have to note one thing: Even where Carmelites were charged with a parish, the missale carmelitanum was used. The same was (is) true for the Dominicans.

Today this is true also of the Franciscans. We use the Roman-Franciscan missal, breviary and liturgical calendar. Even when you see the OF celebrated on EWTN, if you listen the readings and the prayers very carefully, you will often find that they are not what you hear at your parish. The idea of unifying the mass, under the guise of the mass of the ages, is actually not quite accurate. Many religious orders have had their own missals and their own peculiarities, if you may call them that, and they still do. They will never drop those for one universal form of the mass.

I can’t speak for other orders, but one thing that the Franciscans appreciate about the OF is that they ordained friars can concelebrate. Under the EF, they could not concelebrate. Since the rule explicitly prohibits more than one mass in our religious houses, only one ordained frair got to celebrate mass and the other had to sit in the congregation, even on Sundays. Francis never allowed more than one mass on Sundays in our houses. So, our friars had to be given an indult not to celebrate Sunday mass, because the Canon Law of 1917, I believe, commanded all priests to celebrate mass on Sunday. We never did, even when canon law demanded it. The friars in those days had to present their case to the Holy See and the Holy See granted the dispensation from the obligation to celebrate Sunday mass based on the fact that the Franciscan Order, even though it has thousands of priests, is still a lay order. Therefore, they had to celebrate mass as a lay community, with one priest celebrating for the entire house. The only tme that several friars were allowed to celbrate mass was in parishes, where they had several masses and each friar celebrated one mass. But if there were only four masses and five ordained friars, the superior had to select who did not get to celebrate mass on Sunday.

We never recognized such a thing as a private mass. It was in the rule of St. Francis that mass is the work of the Church; therefore, it is never private, even when the priest is alone. Therefore, no ordained friar could celebrate a “private mass” unless there was a very good reason and was approved by the Major Superior. Even the local superior couldn not give such permission.

One of the few friars who were granted such permission was Padre Pio, because his faculties were taken away by the Holy Office in the Vatican. The Provincial superior granted him faculties to celebrate mass very early in the morning or in the oratory, where no lay people were present nor any other friar. This was done to comply with the Holy Office.

As you can see, the mass of the ages, is really a questionable label. There were many rules and many differences between religious communities. The only ones who were bound to it were secular priests, not priests in religious orders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AJV]

I can’t speak for other orders, but one thing that the Franciscans appreciate about the OF is that they ordained friars can concelebrate. Under the EF, they could not concelebrate. Since the rule explicitly prohibits more than one mass in our religious houses, only one ordained frair got to celebrate mass and the other had to sit in the congregation, even on Sundays. Francis never allowed more than one mass on Sundays in our houses. So, our friars had to be given an indult not to celebrate Sunday mass, because the Canon Law of 1917, I believe, commanded all priests to celebrate mass on Sunday. We never did, even when canon law demanded it. The friars in those days had to present their case to the Holy See and the Holy See granted the dispensation from the obligation to celebrate Sunday mass based on the fact that the Franciscan Order, even though it has thousands of priests, is still a lay order. Therefore, they had to celebrate mass as a lay community, with one priest celebrating for the entire house. The only tme that several friars were allowed to celbrate mass was in parishes, where they had several masses and each friar celebrated one mass. But if there were only four masses and five ordained friars, the superior had to select who did not get to celebrate mass on Sunday.

We never recognized such a thing as a private mass. It was in the rule of St. Francis that mass is the work of the Church; therefore, it is never private, even when the priest is alone. Therefore, no ordained friar could celebrate a “private mass” unless there was a very good reason and was approved by the Major Superior. Even the local superior couldn not give such permission.

Br. JR, but I’m curious as to where you get your information. St. Francis certainly exhorted the community to celebrate one Mass but this simplicity was abandoned soon after as many Franciscan missals and Ordines show. What was adopted instead was the typical monastic arrangement whereby priests in houses attended the conventual Mass and then celebrated their own Mass.

In the Analecta Franciscana there isn’t even a record of the indult you describe. Rather, in the 1965-67 period, one can find the opposite indicated and the encouragement to take up concelebration as being more in accord with the earlier spirit of St. Francis.

This is also not bounre out by the liturgical books of the Franciscans. For example, “Tractatus de Rubricis Missalis Romano-Seraphici” clearly indicates otherwise, as does the “Ceremoniale Romano-Seraphicum”. The Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains many rubrics that pertain to private Masses as well as tables indicating when they might be said, “in houses of both sexes and parishes committed to our Order”

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, but I’m curious as to where you get your information. St. Francis certainly exhorted the community to celebrate one Mass but this simplicity was abandoned soon after as many Franciscan missals and Ordines show. What was adopted instead was the typical monastic arrangement whereby priests in houses attended the conventual Mass and then celebrated their own Mass.

In the Analecta Franciscana there isn’t even a record of the indult you describe. Rather, in the 1965-67 period, one can find the opposite indicated and the encouragement to take up concelebration as being more in accord with the earlier spirit of St. Francis.

This is also not bounre out by the liturgical books of the Franciscans. For example, “Tractatus de Rubricis Missalis Romano-Seraphici” clearly indicates otherwise, as does the “Ceremoniale Romano-Seraphicum”. The Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains many rubrics that pertain to private Masses as well as tables indicating when they might be said, “in houses of both sexes and parishes committed to our Order”

What you’re describing is one of many issues that arose in the order between the 1300s and the 1500s. The Conventuals were very much in favor of adopting many of the monastic practices, not only concerning liturgy, but many others, especially related to poverty. But let’s put poverty aside for the moment.

The unity of the brotherhood and the rejection of monastic traditins, which the Church had legitimately approved for the order, created a serious problem for the order. Thus the order ended up spliting between the Conventuals and the Observants. Of couse the Observants also split into different groups. Out of these movements came the Capuchin reform in the 1500s. The point is that not all of the above was universally welcome or practiced by the entire Franciscan family. It was more of a practice among Conventuals and much much later, by some of the Observant groups, albeit reluctantly.

Today, there is a motion on the table by the Friars Minor (OFM) to preserve the OF as the official form of the mass for the community, because they do not want to go back to the one priest, one community celebration. The point that I’m trying to make here is that not everything that appears as tradition, is really so. Some of them were adopted in some quarters, but not all quarters. There has been a renewed resistance to the idea of doing away with OF, because of the issue of concelebration that brings the brothers together and repersents the unity of the fraternity between the ordained and the lay brothers in one common celebration that the EF does not.

As to the indult, it was a request of the General Chapter that was approved by Pope Pius XII when the constitutions were submitted for his approval. Not all indults come in the form of specific documents. In fact, many of the indults that religious have received through the centuries were really parts of their constitutions that were approved by the Holy See, even though they APPEARED to be in conflict with Church law. I say appeared, because more often than not, these are really questions for which the Holy See provides answers. I use the word “indult” and maybe I should have just explained what was in the Constitutions and what the Holy Father approved. That would have probably not caused concern. Sorry about that.

The bottom line is that not everything that we call tradition has been a tradition for everyone. And some things that we want to introduce are really not traditional, but are new, though they may be very good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

Today this is true also of the Franciscans. We use the Roman-Franciscan missal, breviary and liturgical calendar. … Many religious orders have had their own missals and their own peculiarities, if you may call them that, and they still do. They will never drop those for one universal form of the mass.

Yes, but it’s not quite the same as with the O.Carm and the OP. In those two cases (as well with the O.Cart and the O.Cist) the Rite itself was/is not Roman. In the case of the Franciscans, though, even the title Romano-Seraphicum itself tells a different story.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, but it’s not quite the same as with the O.Carm and the OP. In those two cases (as well with the O.Cart and the O.Cist) the Rite itself was/is not Roman. In the case of the Franciscans, though, even the title Romano-Seraphicum itself tells a different story.

That’s true. We never had something as formal as a different rite. We’ve had out own little peculiarities as I call them and of course the differences in the liturgical calendar. I think that the OP, O’Carm, OCD, O. Cist and the O.Cart had their own rite MAY have been due to the fact that they are clerical orders. The Franciscans are much larger with many obediences within the same family. The above mentioned order were much more unified in that regard. In addition, though we went through a period of clericalism, it did not last very long. We have traditionally viewed ourselves as a lay order, with friars who are ordained. Therefore, when you take the identity of a lay order, the form of the mass is pretty much whatever is available in your area. We have houses where there are no priests. We never had permanent deacons. Even that (deacons) is a huge point of debate. Right now it’s only done on a case by case basis.

The form of the mass becomes a more important issues for clerical orders. Orders of brothers, even if they have priests, are not that concerned about the form, as long as it preserves the unity of the fraternity. I recently read a letter written by one of the OFM theologians who was asked to examine the EF for that obedience. The issue in the letter is that the OFM do not want to use the EF, because they do not want to go back to one community mass, celebrated by one priest. Even though there are documents that have allowed the religious to celebrate the mass in private, these documents have always been a point of contention within the Franciscan family. I think that the two greatests points of contention within the Franciscan family has always been fraternity and poverty. That’s why there are so many renewals of the Franciscan order. There is a strong desire to get back to the original spirit of St. Francis

Many people assume that because something has been written, the case has been settled. But this is not always so. One can read the Franciscan Archives and read one thing and you can read the Capuchin Franciscan Annals and read another. I’m not sure if the Conventuals have their own annals or archives, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Now we have some very strong groups such as the Franciscans of the Reform, the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance, the Francisans of Peace, the Little Brothers of St. Francis, the Franciscans of the Immaculate and all are raising a powerful voice against these adaptations that were introduced during previous centuries. Even the original obediences, OFM, OFM Cap, OFM Conv and TOR are debating whether or not to follow these “insertions” into their way of life, especially as it affects their liturgical life and how it affects their sense of brotherhood. If I’m not mistaken, I believe that the Capuchins are coming out with a new Constitution this year or next. I know that they are working on it and brotherhood is one of their main concerns. The focus is to get back to the order of brothers, not just men who live under one roof, but brothers as in religious brothers.

We’ll have to wait and see how these communities work out their effort to recover tradition. This speaks to this thread. We often think of tradition in every narrow terms, usually in liturgical terms. But tradtion is also the way of life of a particular community. That has to be resored if these older communities are going to survive rather than keep splitting into smaller ones. Though, from another perspective, smaller communities may be more akin to the vision of Francis. Unlike the monastic communities, which were very large and which the Conventuals embraced, thus the name conventual.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That’s true. We never had something as formal as a different rite. We’ve had out own little peculiarities as I call them and of course the differences in the liturgical calendar. I think that the OP, O’Carm, OCD, O. Cist and the O.Cart had their own rite MAY have been due to the fact that they are clerical orders.

We O.Carm. had a different rite because we were formed outside of Europe and the lands of the Latin Church. Our rite was simular to the rite of the Holy Sepulchre as that was the rite practiced in Jerusalem when St Albert gave us our Rule and assigned the rite to us.

We were not a clerical order when we were founded. We were hermits, later we moved to Europe and became part of the mendicant movement, again I do not believe that we were considered a clerical order then either.

I believe it is only in recent history that we have become a clerical order.

 

[JReducation]

We O.Carm. had a different rite because we were formed outside of Europe and the lands of the Latin Church. Our rite was simular to the rite of the Holy Sepulchre as that was the rite practiced in Jerusalem when St Albert gave us our Rule and assigned the rite to us.

We were not a clerical order when we were founded. We were hermits, later we moved to Europe and became part of the mendicant movement, again I do not believe that we were considered a clerical order then either.

I believe it is only in recent history that we have become a clerical order.

There we go. Now we know where the Carmelite Rite comes from. I had often wondered when the Carmelites became a clerical order. When I did my doctoral dissertation on Teresa of Avila and Francis of Assisi, all of the old Spanish manuscripts from the Carmelites were signed “Frater”, which means Brother, but was translated into English as Friar. Yet, Teresa uses Padre (Father) and Fray (Friar) interchangeably in her references to the Carmelite friars. While she refers to her Franciscan friends and spiritual guides as Friar. Had I been a Church History major I would have written on this. I found it interesting. I also know that in Spain the Carmelites did very little parish work. Most of them lived in Priories, not parish rectories. They were preachers, scholars, confessors and missionaries. They seemed much more itinerant than today’s Carmelites, much more like the Franciscans and the Dominicans at the time.

The clerical status may have been imposed on the Carmelites by Canon Law in the 20th century. That would be my guess, because of the effort on the part of the Churcfh to establish priests as the Ordinaries of religious orders where they had more ordained religious than lay religious. I don’t know about the Carmelites, but this was a point of contention that the Franciscan order always had with the Vatican from the time of Pius X to Pius XII. Pius XII released them of the clerical status and allowed each obedience to define itself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[silentrosary]

Thank you all for the help. I just put my resume together for Christ the King. I’m thinking this is the right place for me.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you all for the help. I just put my resume together for Christ the King. I’m thinking this is the right place for me.

Good luck to you. You’re in my prayers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF