Universae Ecclesiae

[Denise1957]

Br. JR,

I see that my post elicited a strong reponse from you. I apologize if you found it offensive, as such was not my intent. I could pick your response apart and respond further, but instead, I will ask this: is it possible that your response comes from a fear of what the EF represents? For some, the thought of the EF conjours up images of all the past wrongs (real or imagined) that the Church has been complicit in. The Inquisitions, burnings at the stake, fascism and it’s attending problems, etc, and just a general repression of the human spirit. I think it’s unfair to equate these things with the EF, if indeed that’s what you’re doing.

You needn’t be afraid of the EF.

 

[archangel04]

I can tell you from my own experience, that when I put up my cowl I’m completely in my little cave. What makes it possible for me to contemplate at mass is the prayers, the silence, the solitude that I experience inside my little cowl. Other monks and friars would tell you that it’s something else. For each of us it’s going to be different.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am going to try the bold part during private prayer! I know one thing that helps me out a lot during private prayer is using my ipod and having contemplative music like chant playing. People tell me I should not do this because there is no silence which is true, but it does help me a lot.

 

[Skeptic92]

I am going to try the bold part during private prayer! I know one thing that helps me out a lot during private prayer is using my ipod and having contemplative music like chant playing. People tell me I should not do this because there is no silence which is true, but it does help me a lot.

What I do for contemplative prayer, is I pray my hour ( I usually take half an hour of contemplative prayer after vespers), in a dark room, with solemn music playing (generally Gregorian chant or similar, sometimes even the Brothers from my Abbey chanting), and shut the world out, and concentrate solely on the risen Lord, and Our Lord and Our God, after reading a passage from Scripture, to bring my petitions to his feet, and listen to what he wishes.

May God Bless You

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you Brother, I hadn’t realised that Dialogue Masses were actually a Franciscan Tradition, you really do learn something new every day, this is why we should always refer to our more knowledgeable brothers.

You have to give those pre-Vatican II nuns an equal chance here. I understand they dialogued the Mass, including the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, when Mass was celebrated in the nun’s chapel there. Funny thing, they always had trouble getting any servers at those Masses.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR,

I see that my post elicited a strong reponse from you. I apologize if you found it offensive, as such was not my intent. I could pick your response apart and respond further, but instead, I will ask this: is it possible that your response comes from a fear of what the EF represents? For some, the thought of the EF conjours up images of all the past wrongs (real or imagined) that the Church has been complicit in. The Inquisitions, burnings at the stake, fascism and it’s attending problems, etc, and just a general repression of the human spirit. I think it’s unfair to equate these things with the EF, if indeed that’s what you’re doing.

You needn’t be afraid of the EF.

Actually, my community celebrates the EF on special occasions. I’m not afraid of it at all. I understand it very well.

I was not trying to pull your post apart for your benefit, but for the benefit of others. Because you mentioned some points that have been said here many times. I think that it’s important that people understand the truth about the two forms

I do not associate the EF with all of those horrible things that happened in the past. Most people may not know this, but the mass that Trent adopted and St. Pius V later adapted again was actually preserved by my religious family.

In 1211, our Holy Father asked Pope Innocent III to give him a simpler form of the mass. There were many forms at the time. Francis had two pressing concerns. 1) The form that was used in the Diocese of Assisi required too many books and the brotherhood was too poor to buy them and certainly could not carry them around. 2) His new order was predicated on brotherhood. Priests were allowed to enter, provided that they surrendered all their rights. They could not claim a special place, because they were priests. Francis even made them surrender the title, Father. Everyone was Frater. The mass that was used in Assisi did not allow the friars to participate in the mass. They were bystanders. Francis wanted his brothers wo be active adorers of the Most High Lord in the Eucharist. Pope Innocent gave him an old missal that was rarely used.

Francis and the friars took this missal and over the course of 300 years, they spread this mas throughout Europe. It was a dialog mass. Trent came along and took this mass and tweaked it and declared it the official form of the Roman Rite. Later St. Pius V would tweak it again and promulgate it again. Among other things, they took out the dialog and they took out the laity reading the epistle which the Franciscans always did. The inserted Gregorian Chant, which the Franciscan could not do, because Francis banned Gregorian Chant. They inserted all of the different roles: acolyte, lector, subdeacon, deacon and priest. The Franciscans only had deacon and priest, if there was a deacon. The friars all took turns at acolyte and lector, whether they were or not. Their idea was that the priest was a brother serving his brothers.

Things evolved to where we are today. So, there is no reason for me or any Franciscan to fear the very mass that we made very popular.

What we resist are several points:

The EF is not more reverent than the OF. Both can be celebrated with great dignity. Reverence is a state of mind and an attitude. If a person attends mass to fulfill an obligation and day dreams through the whole thing, that’s not very reverent in either form.

We should never try to make universal statements that imply that everyone can find spiritual nourishment for their journey in one form or another. People are different. We do them violence when we try to impress upon them something that may not be for them. At the same time, the graces to be found are the same in both forms.

We certainly resist the assumption that any priest who does not celebrate the EF is anti Tradition. This is not true. Priests are like every human being. They have reasons for what they do. Some may be opposed to the EF. Others do not find that it meets their spiritual needs. Others do not have permission to celebrate it. The EF was liberated for public use only for secular priests. Regular priests can only celebrate it alone . . . if the superior allows it, they can celebrate it for a congregation. That’s going to be an internal decision. In some religious communities the superior has the authority to make this call. In some communities the superior has to put it to a vote and then he enforces whatever the community decided.

I believe, that on these threads, it’s really important to clarify some of the myths and misconceptions that people have about both forms of the mass, as well as some of the misconceptions that they have about the clergy, bishops and religious involved with the two forms. There are things that people never mention, but are important.

Your post simply happened to include some of the myths that people repeat over an over again. But It was not you who are wrong. It’s the myths that are wrong. The absence of reverence at mass is due to an attitude that people have or that they lack.

I’ve always said that if we had only the Tridentine mass, then everyone would have to attend it. Those people who lack a reverent attitude would make their presence felt at the Tridentine mass. The attitude goes with the people, not the form.

If we want to speak about the choreography and its beauty, each form has a different choreography and some people find one more beautiful than the other. There is no need to debate about that. Beauty is very subjective. Personally, I find that when a mass is celebrated correctly, in any form or any rite, it is beautiful, because it does what it’s supposed to do, proclaim the glory of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

Br. JR wrote:

"We should never try to make universal statements that imply that everyone can find spiritual nourishment for their journey in one form or another. People are different.’

This statement makes no sense to me. I never implied that people could find spiritual nourishment only in the EF. Please point out where I implied this. It’s important to be honest.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR wrote:

"We should never try to make universal statements that imply that everyone can find spiritual nourishment for their journey in one form or another. People are different.’

This statement makes no sense to me. I never implied that people could find spiritual nourishment only in the EF. Please point out where I implied this. It’s important to be honest.

I did not say that you did. As I said, I used your post to speak to the many myths that people write on these threads. Your post was helpful. But not everything that I said came out of your post.

Normally, when someone posts something, I try to use it to speak to everyone. If I just respond to the person, the thread becomes a dialog between two people.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was speaking to you about your statement. I simply used your post as a diving board. I hope this helps clarify the misunderstanding.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

I did not say that you did. As I said, I used your post to speak to the many myths that people write on these threads. Your post was helpful. But not everything that I said came out of your post.

Normally, when someone posts something, I try to use it to speak to everyone. If I just respond to the person, the thread becomes a dialog between two people.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was speaking to you about your statement. I simply used your post as a diving board. I hope this helps clarify the misunderstanding.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You should not have said it if it did not have anything to do with my post. Also, why do you believe that you have a right to say that I cannot find the EF to be more reverent than the OF? By what authority do you claim this right?

 

[TrueLight]

You should not have said it if it did not have anything to do with my post. Also, why do you believe that you have a right to say that I cannot find the EF to be more reverent than the OF? By what authority do you claim this right?

Denise, JR is obviously trying to keep the peace. There is nothing wrong with debating the above, but dialogue works better when it is not confrontational, don’t you think?

 

[Denise1957]

Denise, JR is obviously trying to keep the peace. There is nothing wrong with debating the above, but dialogue works better when it is not confrontational, don’t you think?

Thank you, but I will await Br. JR’s reply. Confrontation is a two-way street.

 

[MarkThompson]

Thank you, but I will await Br. JR’s reply. Confrontation is a two-way street.

Sometimes it is just one person going the wrong way down a one-way street.

 

[JReducation]

You should not have said it if it did not have anything to do with my post. Also, why do you believe that you have a right to say that I cannot find the EF to be more reverent than the OF? By what authority do you claim this right?

Let’s go through this in small steps.

The Holy Father tells us that the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form are both forms of the same Roman Rite.

He tells us that both are the same “lex orandi” and “lex credendi”.

He tells us that “These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division.”

If all the above is true, then to infer that one is more reverent than the other would logically imply that they are not the same mass and worse, it would create the division that the Holy Father says will not happen.

The moment that we begin to compare their reverence and universal merits against each other, we are doing exactly the opposite of what Summorum Pontificum does. Summorum Pontificum places them on an equal plane and proclaims both forms of the mass to be equally sacred and efficacious.

As to finding one more reverent than the other, reverence, as the Spiritual Masters have taught us, is not to be found in the form and externals, but in the heart of the believer. One approaches the mass with reverence, because the mass is an act of reverence, from the ancient Latin word that meant to revere or to adore.

We have two authorities teaching us that reverence is both part of the mass, in any form. It is equal in both forms, because both are equally holy and sacred. And we have the long school of spiritual masters who have taught us that reverence is an internal disposition that expresses itself in external actions.

What is reverent is the action, not the form. If the actions of those are either form fail to express reverence the fault lies with the persons, not with the form of the mass.

I’m sorry, but this is the way that the Spiritual Masters have taught the concept of reverence for centuries.

I’m not trying to get into a conflict with you. This is what I do for a living. I teach and form future religious. That’s why I tend to take things apart and try to put them back together again. It’s my greatest skill that I can bring to the table and put at the disposal of others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Reminds me of a conversation I overheard at a stop light downtown one night. A policeman had a guy pulled over. It was a one way street and the suspect’s car was pointing the wrong way, and he appeared intoxicated.

Cop - “Sir, where do you think you are going ?”

Suspect - " I dunno, but I must be late. Everybody else is coming home ! "

 

[Denise1957]

Thank you for your reply. However, I am not unfamiliar with what you have written. Unlike yourself, I regularly assist at an EF. And never, ever have I implied that the EF is superior to the OF. I like the OF, but I personally find the EF to be more reverent. I have never said that the OF is not so. To be more reverent, IMO, is not to imply that it is unequal. To my knowledge, you do not have the right to say that I cannot find it more reverent. I do not insist that all Catholics have the same view as I. I wouldn’t want them to. But you seem to insist that we must all have your view.

Also, are there any Franciscan communities that fall under the umbrella of Ecclesia Dei? What does Universae Ecclesiae have to do with directly the Franciscans?

 

[InquisitorMax]

It is not the goal of the Ordinary Form to be “folksy”. That is a very rude assessment on the part of the previous poster and one that even the Holy Father himself would have trouble accepting. If you look at all of the masses that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI celebrate for the public, they are all in the Ordinary Form. They are always very reverently celebrated.

The previous Popes don’t say Mass at my local parishes. The laity are very involved and it’s referred to as ‘The People’s Mass’. There’s an effort to democratise the Mass. In one case, the laity came up and helped themselves from the chalice. And then you have the
unncessary use of EMHCs. And the stopping of COTT.

You can’t then reasonably expect people to be in awe of something when you’re trying to make it friendly, with laity in the street clothes in the sanctuary and with pop music and such.

Might have been exciting when these things were first done but now it just looks like a college degree presentation or something.

I remember reading a book recently by a famous Catholic litugist which said that if you use novelty to draw people to a mass they’ll come out of curiosity for a while and then they fall away. I thought “Must’ve been written in the 80’s”. Then I looked at the first publishing year: it was 1972!

 

[TrueLight]

Thank you for your reply. However, I am not unfamiliar with what you have written. Unlike yourself, I regularly assist at an EF.

By assisting, do you mean you are a server?

Forgive my ignorance, and assuming you are a woman, are female servers allowed in the EF mass?

 

[Skeptic92]

By assisting, do you mean you are a server?

Forgive my ignorance, and assuming you are a woman, are female servers allowed in the EF mass?

I’m unsure if Denise is male or female, or if he/she is a Server, but no Female servers are forbidden by the 1962 Missal, in fact it is only in the past 30 or so years that female altar servers have been allowed in the Ordinary Form, and that is at the discretion of the Holy Father, The Bishops Conference, the Dioceses Ordinary and the Priest themselves (if the Parish Priest decided he did not want Altar Girls, he could forbid female servers at his masses).

 

[malphono]

By assisting, do you mean you are a server?

Forgive my ignorance, and assuming you are a woman, are female servers allowed in the EF mass?

No, I think she means “assist” as in “attend”. The expression “assist at Mass” is still quite common in the Usus Antiquior.

 

[MarkThompson]

By assisting, do you mean you are a server?

Forgive my ignorance, and assuming you are a woman, are female servers allowed in the EF mass?

“Assist” in this sense is a somewhat old-fashioned synonym for “attend,” and carries no connotation whatsoever of helping out. If you learn Spanish, one of the funniest little quirks is that asistir means “attend” and atender means “assist.”

Occasionally, you will see people say, “Oh, we Catholics are not supposed to merely attend Mass, we are supposed to assist at Mass!” as though there were a difference. There is not.

 

[Denise1957]

By assisting, do you mean you are a server?

Forgive my ignorance, and assuming you are a woman, are female servers allowed in the EF mass?

Yes, I am a woman. To ‘assist’ at Mass refers to the person in the pew who is present and participating at the Mass. It has nothing to do with altar servers.