What is the point of tradition (little t)?

[TimothyH]

In these conversations it is very easy to push things to absurdity by using specific examples. I am speaking more generally. Of course no one would argue that the Pope’s red shoes are wonderfully important–although if a Pope is not a religious then I don’t see why not to wear them–but I mean an overarching attitude of, “Change change CHANGE,” that can be quite rude and rabid.

Keep in mind that ongoing renewal is an authentic and organic part of our faith. Change for the sake of change is useless at best, even dangerous - I’ll grant that - but that is not what ongoing renewal is. Always adapting the core of our faith to the times and circumstances is something the Benedictines exemplify, especially the Cistercian/Trappist branch.

There have been many renewals - some ancient and some very recently - which were very rapid and very disruptive yet guided by the Holy Spirit. Speed and difficulty are not good indications that God’s will is being followed. God doesn’t always move slowly. The decline and restoration of the permanent diaconate is again the perfect example.

-Tim-

 

[Avila123]

Common’ folks . . . the person is asking a legitimate and intelligent question. But the answers are all over the place and some of them reflect personal opinions rather than solid theology and ecclesiology.

Sacred Tradition, which is what St. Paul is talking about whenever he speaks about what he has handed down to the Churches and to individuals does not change. It is what it is.

All of the other traditions that you mentioned and many that you did not mention came into existence through the process of ecclesiological evolution, as St. Bonaventure would explain it. He did not use the term evolution. That’s my term. He used the term, “theology of history”. Meaning that as history goes along, Truth finds different ways of expressing itself in a way that preserves Tradition (that which was handed down by the Apostles); but opens new paths that allow man to enter into the mind of God. Bonaventure uses St. Francis of Assisi as an example.

It’s actually a very good example. Until 1209, there were two forms of male religious life, monastic and canonical. Francis eschews both traditions. He bans the use of the choir, the use of Gregorian chant during the LOTH. He asks the pope for a form of the mass that is simpler than the form in use at that time and the pope grants it by giving him a missal that would later become what we know as the Tridentine Mass, which a little touching up. He banned abbots from our religious houses. He banned distinctions between priests and brothers. Everyone was a brother. He banned the cloister. He banned stability, which St. Benedict and St. Augustine has defended. Everyone had to be on the move, except for Clare and her nuns. He banned silence, which Benedict and Augustine had defended and the Church had practiced for about 700 years. He admitted married people to his order. He sold missals, chalices and other items to feed the poor. He moved the tabernacle from the side chapel, which Benedict had insisted on and the Church had upheld for about 700 years. Francis placed the tabernacle in the sanctuary front and center. So you see, the tabernacle front and center is NOT a Catholic tradition. It’s a Franciscan tradition that many cultures adopted. Today people fight over it as if it was handed down by the Apostle Peter himself.

To use the words of St. Bonaventure, throughout history, the Holy Spirit raises up men for the good of the Church. Very often, these men will introduce things or do away with things that at the moment may look unorthodox or contrary to tradition, but with the passage of time, no one realizes that there was a time when this was not there and the Church begins to benefit. Take the changes that Francis introduced to the consecrated life, to the liturgy and to the sanctuary. Who today would argue that it has not benefited the Church?

If it did not benefit the Church, then why are so many people up in arms about putting the tabernacle back where St. Benedict and St. Augustine has originally placed it, in a side chapel? If it did not benefit the Church, how would Christianity have spread to the New World, since it was friars who brought it here? If it did not benefit the Church, how did the Church find its way into the halls of higher education at Paris, Oxford, Salamanca, Padua, Rome when it was the Franciscans the first to become professors and chairs at these great universities?

None of the above was ever dreamed of by Benedictines or Augustinians. It was Franciscans and later Dominicans who joined them. But the Dominicans kept many of the monastic customs such as the monastic LOTH, which Franciscans did not keep. They replaced the monastery with a priory, which Franciscans did not do. They replaced the abbot with a prior, which Francis condemned. There are to be no priors. All superiors are to submit to the voice of the governed.

This is just one of many things that have happened in Church history that stirred people up, but as time passed, people forgot how it all began and simply took it for granted.

The same too will happen with the pope’s red shoes, female alter servers, CITH, mass in the vernacular or any of these other practices. If they are of benefit to the future of the Church, God will act through history and preserve these things and future generations will no longer ask “Why?” They will become natural to them. Whatever is not beneficial to the future history of the Church, God will simply allow it to die. But we don’t know what God has in mind for the future. So, as Bonaventure teaches us, we submit with grace and trust to the will of the Magisterium and wait for the God of history to act through history.

That’s the theological answer to this person’s question.

If anyone is interested in more, I suggest reading such works as:

The Journey of the Soul Into the Mind of God by Bonaventure, Theology of History In St. Bonaventure by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger or The Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman.

Thank you for the enlightenment above (how do you learn and remember all of it?). I find it difficult to grasp that there was a time when the Tabernacle wasn’t in the center (to use a Northern phrase “I’m** gobsmacked**”).

Thinking about what you have said, it seems to boil down to it doesn’t matter what we feel or think, its what God wants for our benefit. So when change comes, we question, maybe argue a bit, sulk in a corner and then have to accept that we have to throw caution to the wind and trust in God. At worst, its uncomfortable until the changes go out like a damp squib and at best, we get that longer term something extra special.

Tabernacle to the side? I just don’t get it. Its not natural. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thank you for the enlightenment above (how do you learn and remember all of it?). I find it difficult to grasp that there was a time when the Tabernacle wasn’t in the center (to use a Northern phrase “I’m** gobsmacked**”).

Thinking about what you have said, it seems to boil down to it doesn’t matter what we feel or think, its what God wants for our benefit. So when change comes, we question, maybe argue a bit, sulk in a corner and then have to accept that we have to throw caution to the wind and trust in God. At worst, its uncomfortable until the changes go out like a damp squib and at best, we get that longer term something extra special.

Tabernacle to the side? I just don’t get it. Its not natural. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

Our tabernacle is off to the side. Fully visible from every seat in the sanctuary. It is however, centerpiece of our BLESSED SACRAMENT CHAPEL. The chapel is a smaller intimate place that really is magnificent for adoration.

So I think if done right it’s great. Going to adoration in a large sanctuary sometimes for me is hard with distractions and the Monstrance so far away. It’s much more intimate in the small side chapel. (Separated by glass from the sanctuary)

 

[ProVobis]

Sacred Tradition, which is what St. Paul is talking about whenever he speaks about what he has handed down to the Churches and to individuals does not change. It is what it is.

Br JR, I agree. But when I bring up St. Paul, they throw the “well, they’re all disciplines the Church can change” at me. You are better skilled on the topic so I’ll just sit and read.

 

[GangGreen]

There was no Latin mass before around the 4th or 5th century. The mass was first in celebrated in Greek. Where is the call to return to the Greek mass?

Latin became the official language of the Church at those times, although that’s not to say that it wasn’t in use in some places prior to that (that no one can be sure of). Don’t forget also that prior to those times the Church was persecuted greatly by the Romans. As such, Latin was avoided by the early Church.

The OF as it is now was supposed to be a call back to the simplicity of the early Mass, however, it completely disregarded much of the organic change that occurred for almost 1600 years after those times and in many places became something it shouldn’t have ever been (as we see in some of these highly liberal churches). The problem many have with the OF is that it wasn’t organic change and instead was a break from tradition. Hence why people push for the return to Latin and not to Greek (as Greek has very little traditional value in the Latin Church).

We’ll see years from now how the OF holds up. For now, the main resistance against the EF making a wider return is actually clergy rather than the laity.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Latin became the official language of the Church at those times, although that’s not to say that it wasn’t in use in some places prior to that (that no one can be sure of). Don’t forget also that prior to those times the Church was persecuted greatly by the Romans. As such, Latin was avoided by the early Church.

The OF as it is now was supposed to be a call back to the simplicity of the early Mass, however, it completely disregarded much of the organic change that occurred for almost 1600 years after those times and in many places became something it shouldn’t have ever been (as we see in some of these highly liberal churches). The problem many have with the OF is that it wasn’t organic change and instead was a break from tradition. Hence why people push for the return to Latin and not to Greek (as Greek has very little traditional value in the Latin Church).

We’ll see years from now how the OF holds up. For now, the main resistance against the EF making a wider return is actually clergy rather than the laity.

I have no problem with Latin being the official language of the church. And I appreciate the Tridentine mass, my point was merely to point out that Latin replaced Greek as the official language because it was the language spoken by the people.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Jesus broke with tradition in many ways. Sometimes it gets in the way.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for the enlightenment above (how do you learn and remember all of it?). I find it difficult to grasp that there was a time when the Tabernacle wasn’t in the center (to use a Northern phrase “I’m** gobsmacked**”).

Now there’s a word I never heard, but I’m from Central VA. LOL

Thinking about what you have said, it seems to boil down to it doesn’t matter what we feel or think, its what God wants for our benefit. So when change comes, we question, maybe argue a bit, sulk in a corner and then have to accept that we have to throw caution to the wind and trust in God. At worst, its uncomfortable until the changes go out like a damp squib and at best, we get that longer term something extra special.

We need to work with God rather than fight God.

Tabernacle to the side? I just don’t get it. Its not natural. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

Actually, it’s quite natural, if you read the Rule of St. Benedict. The church building mimics the temple. There is a space for everything. And so, the main sanctuary is where the sacrifice is offered. The entire focus must be on the sacrifice, on nothing else. The choir is where praise is offered. The focus must be on the Word. In the middle of the choir there is large podium with a very large Psalter. People did not make it an common practice to have adoration. It was an individual practice. The tabernacle was in a side chapel that allowed the individual privacy. It was usually adjacent to the sanctuary. You couldn’t see it from the main narthex, but those on the sanctuary could see it by looking over to the side.

Francis moved it to the sanctuary because the Franciscan chapels were small. They didn’t have much room for a side chapel or even a side altar. With the expansion of the Franciscans, this custom spread throughout Europe and later to the Americas. There is always a trade off. You gained the tabernacle front and center with the Franciscans, but you lost the Liturgy of the Hours. The argument has always been that the tabernacle is not an essential part of the liturgical life of the Church, but the LOTH is. In some Franciscan houses they are starting to pray the LOTH with the lay faithful.

Br JR, I agree. But when I bring up St. Paul, they throw the “well, they’re all disciplines the Church can change” at me. You are better skilled on the topic so I’ll just sit and read.

Paul speaks about disciplines and about Sacred Tradition. It’s usually pretty easy to tell which is which. The scriptures cannot stand alone. They stand with the Church and with Tradition. Whatever part of Paul the Church recognizes as Sacred Tradition, is just that. Whatever part of Paul the Church identifies as discipline, is that.

For example, covering one’s head. Paul speaks about it. But he does not claim that it’s part of revelation, nor does any other apostle mention it. The early fathers never mentioned having received this as revealed truth from the Apostles. Therefore, it’s up to the Magisterium to decide whether it’s Tradition or tradition. The verdict is in. It’s tradition. The Magisterium has the power to bind or unbind from any tradition.

It’s equally important to remember that many traditions lost their meaning or acquired new meanings over the centuries. For example, Archbishop Ganswein, Benedict XVI’s secretary once corrected a misconception that the red shoes signify the blood of the martyrs. He explained that this is an “assigned significance” that popular opinion has given to them. The truth is that the red shoes were worn by monarchs from a certain century forward. The same applies to the tiara.

It was picked up along the way, when popes became heads of state. They became part of the European royalty. Pope Paul VI decided that the papacy is no longer part of the European royalty, because to tell the truth, royalty in Europe are figureheads.

We must remember that Paul VI was a civil and canon lawyer. From a lawyer’s perspective, if the pope appears to be royalty, is he just a figurehead?

The result was that the focus gradually shifted to Bishop of Rome. Bishop of Rome and papacy are inseparable. Royalty and papacy are not essential to each other. Along came John Paul II and bypassed the coronation. Then came Benedict XVI and took the tiara off the papal coat of arms. Then comes Francis and refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome. It seems to be working, because it has a lot of people’s attention.

Some people will argue that the non believers are paying attention but not converting. Then you would have people like the Franciscans, Salesians, Dominicans, Jesuits, Maryknoll, Missionaries of Charity, OMIs, and many other institutes known for their missionary work throughout history who would answer, “Stop rushing God.”

Faith is a gift that God wants to give to everyone. But he does not want to give it to everyone at the same rate or in the same doses. He knows us and how much we can handle at one time. He also knows what we must experience before we can truly appreciate the gift of faith. This is going to be different for each generation and each person.

As long as the Church has the attention of people who in the past ignored her, God has their attention. Let him play the audience.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Brother JR,

You are always worth at least but today you get

 

[JReducation]

Sometimes new things are added in a pretty short time, after they’ve been proven–the abandonment or altering of existing structures was a slow process, however.

Your examples do prove that sometimes new ideas did gain ecclesiastic acceptance in a short time. However, I would propose that in both examples you found, the average laity or even priest of the 13th century would have been almost or totally unaware of those changes for maybe a century after they were introduced, however much they turned Assisi or Cologne upside down.

Actually no. The mendicants turned the Church upside down in less than 15 years. They took over great universities. They became bishops and cardinals. By the time the Franciscans were 75 years old, they had their first pope. Bonaventure was born before Francis died. Anthony of Padua was teaching Sacred Scripture to Dominicans, secular clergy and Franciscans by the year 1221.

The changes introduced into the liturgy by the Franciscans spread to Spain, Turkey, France, England, Portugal, Italy, Morocco, Tunisia, Jerusalem, and Germany by the Chapter of Mats, which took place in 1221. There were 5,000 friars at that chapter from those countries. Many of them were bishops.

Just the fact that you had bishops and cardinals subject to a superior general who was a religious brother was a scandal to the secular clergy and to many among the laity. No religious brother ever had this much power since Bernard reformed the Benedictines.

The fact that the Poor Clare Nuns were off limits to the friars was another point of contention at the time. Women religious alway submitted to an male superior. The abbess, had an abbot. But Clare and Francis created the two orders to be completely autonomous. The sisters were self-governing. Then Clare took it up a notch. She decreed that each house be self governing. Then she decreed that the habit of the sisters be determined by the sisters of the local house and that there be no standardized habit. This was another cause of grief. Rome tried to squelch these reforms by imposing the Rule of St. Benedict of Clare and her nuns. Clare continued to lobby for almost 40 years. Two days before she died, she received the Motu Proprio that decreed that her order would operate as she wished. The nuns would be autonomous, free of all male intervention, including the bishops and the friars and each house would be autonomous once it had enough nuns to become independent. So we see Mother Angelica and her sisters today. They have nothing to do with the other 20,000 Poor Clares around the world.

These things did not take a century to trickle down and catch the attention of the diocesan clergy and the general public. They took less than 40 years total. That’s just the Franciscans. We can go into the Dominican and Carmelite influence which is contemporary.

 

[ProVobis]

We must remember that Paul VI was a civil and canon lawyer.

Speaking of which,

TITLE II: CUSTOM (Cann. 23 - 28)

Can. 23 A custom introduced by a community of the faithful has the force of law only if it has been approved by the legislator, in accordance with the following canons.

Can. 24 §1 No custom which is contrary to divine law can acquire the force of law.

§2 A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.

Can. 25 No custom acquires the force of law unless it has been observed, with the intention of introducing a law, by a community capable at least of receiving a law.

Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

Doesn’t the above highlighted demonstrate the force of small-t tradition?

 

[JReducation]

Speaking of which,

Doesn’t the above highlighted demonstrate the force of small-t tradition?

You have to take all of 26.

**Can. 26 Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, **

A custom can become law, if it is approved by someone with authority.

a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years.

If the custom and the law are in conflict, the custom becomes law if it has been observed for 30 years. But it’s only applicable to those whom the pope decides to allow to make use of it.

Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

If a canon prohibits future customs, but there is a custom in place that 100 years old or longer, it CAN become law. It does not have to become law.

We must also remember that all of the above is subject to the will of the Bishop of Rome. He decides when and to whom this applies.

Let’s be careful to avoid the tendency to say that because it’s canon law it must be this way. The truth is that it must be that way as long as the pope doesn’t say anything to the contrary. You have a hierarchy of authority. Above the law are ecumenical councils and the pope.

One thing that I notice a lot on Catholic forums is that people tend to believe that Canon Law is like civil law. If it’s in the law, everyone is bound to it. Not so. Only those whom the pope chooses to bind are bound to it for as long as he chooses and he cannot bind himself or his successors. He has much greater powers over law than the President or a Prime Minister.

 

[Rich_C]

Actually no. The mendicants turned the Church upside down in less than 15 years. …These things did not take a century to trickle down and catch the attention of the diocesan clergy and the general public. They took less than 40 years total. That’s just the Franciscans. We can go into the Dominican and Carmelite influence which is contemporary.

OK, my understanding of the speed of the historical change was flawed. I own that.

But this seems to prove my point. We are astounded that 800 years ago, it only took 40 years (practically a lifetime in those years) for a new movement was able to sweep the Church from top to bottom.

It’s the exception proving the rule. Gradual change is the norm.

Also, a major part of my argument is that while new things have occasionally been added (the Tridentine Mass was 1,000 years in the making, for example), the suppression of long-standing customs and traditions was almost unheard of until the 20th century. That was the OP’s question, to paraphrase: “why do little ts matter if they are so casually discarded?”

Well, it was not always so.

Yes, I know you could find a few examples of old traditions being suppressed, but that’s exactly the point. In 2,000 years, until about 1900, you would find very few examples indeed.

 

[TimothyH]

OK, my understanding of the speed of the historical change was flawed. I own that.

But this seems to prove my point. We are astounded that 800 years ago, it only took 40 years (practically a lifetime in those years) for a new movement was able to sweep the Church from top to bottom.

It’s the exception proving the rule. Gradual change is the norm.

Also, a major part of my argument is that while new things have occasionally been added (the Tridentine Mass was 1,000 years in the making, for example), the suppression of long-standing customs and traditions was almost unheard of until the 20th century. That was the OP’s question, to paraphrase: “why do little ts matter if they are so casually discarded?”

Well, it was not always so.

Yes, I know you could find a few examples of old traditions being suppressed, but that’s exactly the point. In 2,000 years, until about 1900, you would find very few examples indeed.

It is not just a few examples. Example after example has been given.

The destruction of the Temple in 70AD was a violent and sudden event in Judaism and Christianity but one that defined both for twenty centuries. Christians used to participate in temple worship before the temple was destroyed, offering sacrifice and participating in the liturgical prayers of the Jews while also celebrating the Eucharist in private homes. Talk about tradition! Temple worship was 1500 year tradition and it was gone in a day.

The permanent diaconate faded out of existence over a 500 year period and ceased to exist after 1000AD. It was restored in 1967 with a stroke of a pen and many reacted violently to this “new” order of clerics without realizing that it was a restoration of a tradition which is documented in the Bible.

Western monasticism had deteriorated over many centuries, politicized and beholding to rich benefactors. 21 Benedictine monks walked into the swamps of France in 1098 and reformed all of western monasticism in a few short years.

Even now, this very day, we haven’t had a religious pope in over 150 years, never a Jesuit. We suddenly have not only a religious pope, but a Jesuit and look how everyone is freaking out over everything the man says.

The reform of the Liturgy of the Hours in 1910 was rapid. One day everyone used one schema and the next day they threw the books in the garbage and started using another.

Some priests had to be forced to use Gregorian Chant.

Example after example can be shown. God works through history even in the Church. Sometimes things are slow, sometimes rapid. Speed at which things change are not an indication of their merit or God’s will that any particular change happen.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Speed at which things change are not an indication of their merit

I would disagree. In physics, that would be the second derivative, or the acceleration, which very much determines the force applied. Nothing to be dismissed aside easily.

 

[JReducation]

This thread is boiling down to the same tired argument about the mass. Folks, let’s be practical and realistic. This horse has been beaten to death on CAF and other forums. No one with an ounce of academic intelligence and with more important things to do is going to remain engaged in a discussion about the EF vs OF.

The issue of time is a silly one. Some things move more quickly than others for many reasons. I’m not going into all of them, because I’d have to give all of you a course in ecclesiology and Church History. Neither are my specialty and you’d probably be as bored as I was when I studied them in the seminary. Unless you have a very exciting professor, both subjects can be as arid as the Sahara.

The truth is that there is an argument going around that the Tridentine mass goes back 1500 years, which is not quite accurate. Some people want to make it sound accurate, because it enhances their agenda.

The Tridentine Mass begins with Pius V, who after the Council of Trent, implemented a series of liturgical reforms called for by the Council and some things that he wanted to see in the mass. Hence the term, Tridentine. Prior to the Council of Trent, this form of the mass was one of many forms in the Latin Church.

It had become the most commonly used form, not because of the Apostles. It’s popularity grew as the Franciscan Order grew. The Franciscans carried it with them throughout Europe. There were two other very popular forms of the mass that were also carried throughout Europe by the Mendicants, the Dominican and Carmelite rites.

The difference was that the Franciscans never requested a rite. They simply took the Mass of St. Peter that Pope Innocent III gave to St. Francis and carried it around. They did not embellish it. In fact, they took some things out of it, because it was not practical, eg. the prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel. They would later insert the name of Francis into the confeteor and the canon of the mass. With the permission of the Holy See, of course.

It was a very simple mass that was only used in the Lateran and the Diocese of Rome. It had come to be known as the Mass of St. Peter. It was not composed by Peter. It was known as such, because the pope celebrated it on the Feast of Peter and Paul and it was celebrated in the old St. Peter’s Basilica, which was the building that existed from the 4th century.

There are different stories as to where it came from. Like the theories of evolution, these are also theories. No one has ever taken responsibility for its origins and no one can prove its origins. What is known is that prior to the birth of the Franciscans, this mass was not known outside of the Diocese of Rome. We also know that there were other forms of the mass, which Trent suppressed, that were probably just as old, but were rarely used and had acquired some deficiencies.

If anyone wants to waste their time arguing for or against the EF, he or she has plenty of material to work with, because every author believes that his organization and presentation of the “facts” is right.

I . . . suggest my method. My method is not to engage in a discussion for or against the EF or the OF. I allow both to exist. I do not market or promote either. I do not care which one people choose as long as they get their bottoms in the pew on Sunday and I don’t stand guard over how the priest, servers, deacons or lay people behave at mass. I go to mass to pray and I ignore everyone and everything else. You can drive a train through the sanctuary and I probably would not notice it. For me, it was a matter of disciplining myself in prayer. One of the best teachers in this method is a Catholic writer by the name of Fr. Jacques Philippe. Pick up his work and spend time on that. It’s much more helpful than these threads on the mass.

Searching for and Maintaining Peace by Philippe

 

[ProVobis]

The Tridentine Mass begins with Pius V, who after the Council of Trent, implemented a series of liturgical reforms called for by the Council and some things that he wanted to see in the mass. Hence the term, Tridentine. Prior to the Council of Trent, this form of the mass was one of many forms in the Latin Church.

It had become the most commonly used form, not because of the Apostles. It’s popularity grew as the Franciscan Order grew. The Franciscans carried it with them throughout Europe. There were two other very popular forms of the mass that were also carried throughout Europe by the Mendicants, the Dominican and Carmelite rites.

The difference was that the Franciscans never requested a rite. They simply took the Mass of St. Peter that Pope Innocent III gave to St. Francis and carried it around. They did not embellish it. In fact, they took some things out of it, because it was not practical, eg. the prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel. They would later insert the name of Francis into the confeteor and the canon of the mass. With the permission of the Holy See, of course.

It was a very simple mass that was only used in the Lateran and the Diocese of Rome. It had come to be known as the Mass of St. Peter. It was not composed by Peter. It was known as such, because the pope celebrated it on the Feast of Peter and Paul and it was celebrated in the old St. Peter’s Basilica, which was the building that existed from the 4th century.

Br JR, just out of curiosity, how do/did these orders use the Roman Canon as we know it?

 

[TimothyH]

I . . . suggest my method. My method is not to engage in a discussion for or against the EF or the OF. I allow both to exist. I do not market or promote either. I do not care which one people choose as long as they get their bottoms in the pew on Sunday and I don’t stand guard over how the priest, servers, deacons or lay people behave at mass. I go to mass to pray and I ignore everyone and everything else. You can drive a train through the sanctuary and I probably would not notice it. For me, it was a matter of disciplining myself in prayer. One of the best teachers in this method is a Catholic writer by the name of Fr. Jacques Philippe. Pick up his work and spend time on that. It’s much more helpful than these threads on the mass.

Searching for and Maintaining Peace by Philippe

I almost jumped out of my chair when you mentions Fr. Philippe. He writes very small, short books, 125 pages or so, extremely easy to read and they are dirt cheap. His little books are like firecrackers - you open them up and BANG!

Searching for and Maintaining Peace is wonderful.

The book that made a huge change in my life is In the School of the Holy Spirit.

These are books you will read many times. A complete set is at scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=663.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, just out of curiosity, how do/did these orders use the Roman Canon as we know it?

I don’t know about Dominicans or Carmelites, because they had their own rites. Franciscans used the same Roman Canon, but our friars (until the new EP came out) included Francis, Clare and Joseph among the saints. Other than that, there was no discernable difference. I don’t think most people even noticed the saints, because the Canon was said very quickly. One other thing that we had was an audible Canon. We never had the tradition of whispering the parts of the mass. The mass was always a dialogue option between the presider and the fraternity. The superior of the house decided how the mass was to be celebrated, dialogue or silent. Most superiors preferred dialogue. There was nothing else that I can remember that would be out of the ordinary.

I almost jumped out of my chair when you mentions Fr. Philippe. He writes very small, short books, 125 pages or so, extremely easy to read and they are dirt cheap. His little books are like firecrackers - you open them up and BANG!

Searching for and Maintaining Peace is wonderful.

The book that made a huge change in my life is In the School of the Holy Spirit.

These are books you will read many times. A complete set is at scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=663.

-Tim-

Someone gave me a copy as a gift. It was one of the best gifts that I ever received. I’m sure that it’s still in print.

Another great work for those who struggle with these subjects is a book by Joseph Ratzinger called Theology of History in St. Bonaventure. It’s a spin off Joseph Ratzinger’s doctoral dissertation. He is an expert in Augustinian and Franciscan theology (Ratzinger that is).

Bonaventure’s message is quite simple. “God acts through change and what is not helpful or necessary for the Church, He allows to die and whatever is necessary, He strengthens in His own time, not ours. Therefore, mind your own business and let God do His work.”

Ever see too many Franciscans up in arms over the EF/OF question?

That’s because we don’t worry about it. We discuss it and then do whatever the pope tells us to do, we simply tell ourselves, “He’s right and we’re wrong. Now let’s get back to what we were doing. God will take care of the rest.” We move on.

That’s the beauty of Franciscan obedience. If authority commands what is contrary to the moral law, it’s not a valid command. If authority commands or allows that which, even though it is foolish, is not contrary to the moral law must be accepted without questions and without personal feelings. God is not interested in our feelings. Our submission pleases God and man; therefore, it fulfills the first and second commandment, love God and love your brother.

 

[MorEphrem]

Reading the first page of this thread the only thought I had was so many posters creating false dichotomies… In so many Latins’ language it’s implicitly assumed that you either love liturgical tradition or you love God. Perhaps those are the kinds of ideas that have to be propagated to dispose of ancient liturgical tradition and form entirely new constructs.