When did their clergy become canons and is this title consistent with its historical use? I am probably ignorant on this matter, but I always thought of a canon as priest permanently attached to a collegiate church or cathedral immediately under the bishop, meaning the church is directly subject to the ordinary and that there is no layering of authority as in a monastery. In Italy canons are called Monsignor Someone while elsewhere they are usually addressed Canon Someone or Fr. Someone. As far as I can see this does not describe the Institute's situation.
Am I missing something? Does anyone else have insight on the matter? Regardless, the Institute does seem to have undergone a significant paradigm shift last decade.
Holy Saturday in 2003
Holy Saturday in 2012
While they adopted their official choir dress after their annual chapter meeting in 2006, the clergy of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest became 'secular canons' on Oct 7, 2008, when their constitutions were formally approved by the Holy See via the decree "Saeculorum Rex" and the Institute was elevated from a society of apostolic life of diocesan right to one of pontifical right. According to their approved constitutions, they are "une société cléricale de vie apostolique en forme canoniale, sans vœux religieux." Likewise, the common life of the members of the Institute "est canoniale et orientée selon la forme des presbytères augustiniens et des chanoines séculiers au cours de l’histoire de l’Eglise, à l’exemple d’une famille spirituelle centrée autour de la célébration du Mystère liturgique."
ReplyDeleteThey therefore view themselves as secular Augustinian canons.
Before Summorum Pontificum, it was common that the ICRSP used the pre-Pian Holy Week liturgies, as well as other pre-Pian Missal revisions (commemorations, etc.). Since the motu proprio and especially since their being granted pontifical right status, they adhere more or less to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum in their celebration of the 1962 Missal.
For full disclosure, I am a former seminarian of the ICRSP. A question still lingers in my mind: why does the founder and superior general refer to himself as "Monseigneur." I've never received a satisfactory response.
I am an admirer of the ICRSP, and yet I cannot see how their use of the title "canon" can be reconciled with any of the traditional definitions.
ReplyDeleteHistorically there were secular canons, attached to a cathedral or collegiate church, and responsible for offering the daily Capitular Mass and the hours of the Divine Office. This is not what the ICRSP are.
Then there were canons regular, religious in vows, which again are not what the ICRSP are.
They seem to have invented a new category, "secular canons regular," which does not bind them to choir observance or to vows of religion, but they retain the vestural privileges. This is, in my opinion, unfortunate.
I do believe at their seminary and in their communities they, privately, do sing Lauds and Vespers though. I am open to correction on this point.
DeleteThat is, of course, a laudable practice, but it is not the liturgical life of canons, traditionally understood.
DeleteHehe... "laudable"
DeleteSeems much of their raison d'etre is all about "retaining the vestural privileges."
DeleteAt Gricigliano they pray in common the daily offices of Lauds, Sext (Terce on Sundays and Feasts), Vespers, and Compline, as well as the martyrology of Prime in the chapter house. In their apostolates they try to have multiple clerics so as to pray the office in common as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteI once asked just that question to one of their priests in Madrid, but he just told me that that was what their constitutions said, so their status was one of canons.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paul: a canon can only be that when attached to a Cathedral or a Collegiate church (as a matter of fact, in my city there are two canon chapters: the secular canons of the Cathedral and the regular canons of st. Isidoro); so ICRSS priest are just fake canons.
About the Liturgy: the same priest (a very good one) told me also that he was a seminarian when they swinfted into '62; he said to me that they must have done that because "you may disagree with Rome, but you can by no means resist her". Ultramontanism strikes again...
Kyrie eleison
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe CRNJ are religious who follow the rule of St. Augustine. They are undoubtedly canons.
DeleteI didn't know that "fake canons" was so offensive (I'm a non-native English speaker), I never wanted to insult them.
DeleteWhat I meant is that they look like those medieval (and not only medieval) bishops who were consecrated because they where friends of the current Pope, and never appointed to a real Diocese. Of course they are canons legally, but the fact they are not attached to a Cathedral or Collegiate makes nonsense (at least in my opinion).
Are there still celebrating traditional Holy Week? In Spain they have never done so, as far as I know. (Well, they are just "tollerated" by diocesan clergy as well as by SSPX priests and faithful).
Kyrie eleison
"About the Liturgy: the same priest (a very good one) told me also that he was a seminarian when they swinfted into '62; he said to me that they must have done that because "you may disagree with Rome, but you can by no means resist her". Ultramontanism strikes again..."
DeleteI don't think it's "ultramontanism" to follow the law of the Church on the celebration of the Mass.
Like The Rad Trad, and most of us here, I think the Pian Holy Week reforms were, in almost their entirety, a very regrettable mistake. But for now, 1962 is all that is permitted under Church law. I look forward to the day when an indult can be issued to use the old Holy Week (and some other things besides).
And what if that indult never arrives? If we always must "follow the law of the Church" despite that law is an error, we must never have questioned the Nouus Ordo, and then no indult would have ever come...
DeleteYou're right about Church law, but the problem is that we often cannot see beyond it: I have been always striken by the fact that almost every well-educated prelate (in Spain, at least) was a doctor in Canon Law. So they were most often blinded about matters going deeper than positive legislation. And that explains pretty much about the current Church's panorama...
Kyrie eleison
As much as I realize that we must respect authority, do we require an indult to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen? If we must follow the commands of the human authorities of the Church on everything, then St. Peter Damien and a lot of other saints are in deep trouble.
DeleteOverall, Ecclesia Dei is the real problem here. Were I to somehow become a bishop I wouldn't invite any Ecclesia Dei groups into my diocese. Instead, there'd be several mandatory Old Roman Masses every week (I'd be sure to spread it among the chapels so there doesn't become one odd "Traddie" ghetto church) and every priest under a certain age would be required to learn the rite. Vernacular would be tolerated.
I think I agree with Athelstane to an extent, but how are we to treat the layering of laws? St Pius V promulgated a rite to be "used in perpetuity" with "the least scruple" and unchangeable, lest the miscreant anger "Almighty God and His Holy Apostles Peter & Paul." Then S Pius X, Pius XII, and Paul VI all changed it. Pius X even used the same wording of immanent Divine wrath in issuing his new Divine Office. We must not also forget that Quo Primum, in tolerating liturgies over 200 years old, gives a legal expression to the right of custom and tradition in liturgy. We tend only to pay attention to whatever law is most recent and which fits our agenda (and I am no different), but objectively I wonder if the law is really clear on this matter.
DeleteThe Roman rite issued by Pius V was supposed to be beyond change, and then Pius X changed it. Pius XII then erased much of that change, while not using the same language as the previous two. Paul VI issued the new liturgy in stages from 1968 to 1975 and implicitly abrogated the transitional rites of 1964-1967 yet we learn in 2007 that 1962 was legal all along. Really, I think custom is the legal precept beyond technicality and reproach and I support anyone who would celebrate older forms of the Roman rite on such grounds.
I asked because I heard from a loosely reliable source that they obtained the title vicariously through the cathedral of Florence, but now I am not sure that was the case.
ReplyDeleteThat might have made sense when they were still under diocesan rite status, when their ecclesiastical "superior" was in fact the cardinal-archbishop of Florence; now, however, I still don't know what or who they are canons of.
DeleteAlthough I too am puzzled with their status as canons, I really do like their blue choir dress. They really do look like the old French bishops.
ReplyDeleteNeopelagianus
IT was said: “a canon can only be that when attached to a Cathedral or a Collegiate church (as a matter of fact, in my city there are two canon chapters: the secular canons of the Cathedral and the regular canons of st. Isidoro); so ICRSS priest are just fake canons.”
ReplyDeleteYes, Justinian, it is QUITE rude. And the first part is untrue. He forgets both the Augustinians and those of Premontre. (White birettas – very chic)
This answer was provided by Sacra Doctrina; assuming its truth, it seems to explain all. “the clergy of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest became 'secular canons' on Oct 7, 2008, when their constitutions were formally approved by the Holy See ...
...Likewise, the common life of the members of the Institute "est canoniale et orientée selon la forme des presbytères augustiniens et des chanoines séculiers au cours de l’histoire de l’Eglise, à l’exemple d’une famille spirituelle centrée autour de la célébration du Mystère liturgique."
They therefore view themselves as secular Augustinian canons.”
I am therefore at a loss to understand how that commenter then goes on to opine that they are not canons of a thing or person.
That is not to say there is no problem about the term.
To be a canon is not in essence to be a bishop’s official but to follow a rule. Churches with larger capitular bodies had common rules. I mention two orders of canons with nothing to do with diocesan bishops per se above.
I have wondered what the rule is but the explanation is given in SD’s first comment : “centrée autour de la célébration du Mystère liturgique.” I think that is thin but that is what is stated.
Can we amplify this?
The rule involved could just be the celebration of the Latin rite pre-1969. That seems to be an invariable rule. Another could be prayer for the Sovereign pontiff that happens at every mass – intrusively on higher Double feasts that should have only one collect. Another could be the practice described of praying the office in common – singing morning and evening.
Some sacrifice is involved in this in that the studies of the seminarians are not backed by academic degrees since they are regularly placed in different locations to facilitate the liturgy.
I have the privilege of assisting at most sung masses at an Institute church. I and others of the regular congregation only wish we could attend oftener.
[This comment is applied - if it works now - several days after i originally tried to send it. More than once the text has disappeared as I signed in - with google. Whose fault do we think?]