Posted on 01/13/2010 10:43:08 AM PST by NYer
Monsignor Guido Marini, Benedict XVI’s master of ceremonies, this week strongly underlined the Pope’s recommendation that when Mass is celebrated facing westwards, the priest should place a crucifix at the centre of the altar. This was to make clear that the celebrant was not “facing the people”, but facing Christ.
The Holy Father could hardly have made himself clearer on this point. So why do the Bishops of England and Wales allow the vast majority of their priests to ignore his wishes? Why do the bishops themselves routinely ignore the recommendation?
Perhaps someone will ask the bishops when they make their ad limina visit to Rome at the end of this month. One hopes that Archbishop Vincent Nichols, president of the Bishops’ Conference, will be able to reply that the bishops have drawn up plans to introduce this reform universally – and also to make it easier for the faithful to receive communion kneeling and on the tongue, which is the preference of the Pope. (At the moment, too many parish priests treat anyone wishing to receive the Sacrament in this way as an oddball, rather than a Catholic following the example of the Holy Father.)
Below are some extracts from Mgr Marini’s address to the Year for Priests Clergy Conference in Rome, organised by the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Hat-tip to that incomparable resource, The New Liturgical Movement website.
Here is Mgr Marini on the question of orientation. Note that he, like the Pope, supports eastward-facing celebration where it is appropriate:
Without recourse to a detailed historical analysis of the development of Christian art, we would like to reaffirm that prayer facing east, more specifically, facing the Lord, is a characteristic expression of the authentic spirit of the liturgy.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
It matters little how many paragraphs you type, Images and statues are Idolatry through and through.Do you have any family pictures?
Wear the Crown of Thorns with humility, as did Our Master.
Iconoclasm was in part imported from Islam, although there had been some abuses which allowed the opposite extreme to gain traction. As you may know, the Mohammedan heretics hold to a fanatical iconoclasm.
The Second Nicaean Council concluded that proper veneration of sacred objects was acceptable (repeated thusly by the Council of Trent):
[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Psalm 134:15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).
And what about the life and works and writings of St. Paul? All done after Jesus’ life.
You’ve omitted the most important verse of John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Not physical flesh, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” It is a spiritual remembrance, and it is done on Passover, as the Lord demonstrated.
So, the Lord's physical flesh, which was crucified on the cross, profited nothing? No salvation from that flesh? Surely no Christian would say such. The flesh spoken of here, of course, is not His flesh, which in fact profits the entire world, but the carnal, i.e. flesh, minds of the listeners who cannot discern the Spirit.
Your interpretation would make a mockery of the entire discourse he had just given. Why, after all, would Christ allow all those people to turn away from him and his teaching when they did so specifically because they were right? After all, they also denied that his flesh could be eaten, and he just let them turn away. Why? Because they were carnal, and hearing without the Spirit but with their carnal, i.e. flesh, minds. They couldn't see past their horror at what he said to hear the truth he was revealing. His flesh, as God's flesh, is more than just flesh. They couldn't understand that, and so could only hear with the flesh, and that won't save. To suggest that Christ is saying that his own flesh, which he offers for us on the cross, profits nothing is itself nothing short of blasphemous.
> Do you have any family pictures?
Good answer.
I agree with your rant.
In our church, the very large crucifix is mounted on the floor behind the chair the priest sits in. I think it is awful. It’s as though the priest sits there to remind us that he’s Christ’s representative. I think it should be attached to the wall behind the altar so we are always facing the altar and the crucifix during Mass. The tabernacle is in the crying room! Don’t even get me started on that...
Thou shalt make also a propitiatory of the purest gold: the length thereof shall be two cubits and a half, and the breadth a cubit and a half. Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other. Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered. In which thou shalt put the testimony that I will give thee. Thence will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be upon the ark of the testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by thee. [Exodus 25:17-22]By your logic, God Himself is an idolater, since He commanded images, statues, and pillars to be set up.And the Lord said to him: Make [a] brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed. [Numbers 21:8-9]
And Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem [...] he graved cherubims on the walls... He made also in the house of the holy of holies two cherubims of image work: and he overlaid them with gold. The wings of the cherubims were extended twenty cubits, so that one wing was five cubits long, and reached to the wall of the house: and the other was also five cubits long, and reached to the wing of the other cherub. In like manner the wing of the other cherub, was five cubits long, and reached to the wall: and his other wing was five cubits long, and touched the wing of the other cherub. So the wings of the two cherubims were spread forth, and were extended twenty cubits: and they stood upright on their feet, and their faces were turned toward the house without. He made also a veil of violet, purple, scarlet, and silk: and wrought in it cherubims. [2 Chronicles 3:1-15]
In future, please do not trouble us with your theological pronouncements. Your knowledge of Scripture is spotty at best, and your opinions are therefore without value.
:)
Quaint?
You should see the stained glass windows at St. Boniface Church in Anaheim, CA. They are glorious: depictions of the life of Christ, the saints, the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, the 7 sacraments, and the priesthood of Christ. The artistry and colors and education are out of this world. They are fantastic!
BTW a purist might argue that I posed no answer, rather the right question. We shall see what answer I get.
> BTW a purist might argue that I posed no answer, rather the right question.
And a scholar of the Bible — or in my case a world-weary Guardian Angel — might instead observe that you answered the question with a question, as Christ was wont to do when asked “By what Authority do you do these things?”
You bring up good points. There are, in fact, some folks who are seriously enough into iconoclasm that they won't even have a picture of Jesus hanging on the wall.
Calls into mind 2 John 7: For many seducers have gone out into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is a seducer and an antichrist.
Just sayin'
Chicken-egg?
> Why, if people were illiterate, were books so popular when the movable press made them more cheaper?
Prestige? If so it wouldn’t be the first time people bought something that they weren’t competent to use just so that they could look trendy.
‘Tis the Deadly Sin of Pride which, as we know, goeth before Destruction, and Haughty Looks before a Fall.
Anybody who has ever bought a Ferarri or a Porsche or a Maserati or a superbike or a SUV and only driven it on the hiway at or near the speed limit is guilty of doing precisely that.
editor-surveyor:
And that would be the Church led by you, i.e. the “Church of the Mirror” or maybe the Church led Pastor “Bubba Bob Smith” and the Church of the “World is flat and man did land on the moon”
That is very good question indeed!
I have a Protestant friend with a huge wall just covered in family photos. How is that any different than displaying a picture of Jesus or the Saints?
Why is it a bad thing to display pictures of the people that we love and hold dear. We do not worship photographs or paintings. So why not display a painting of our Lord or the Saints?
>>And what about the life and works and writings of St. Paul? All done after Jesus’ life.<<
The works that are in the Bible? The guy that used to be Saul?
A take them very seriously. It is in the Bible and clearly amplifies and clarifies what is in the other books of the Bible. Even then, some of the messages are really more cultural than religious (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 and 14:33-35
Yes, they are fantastic, but many believe that the beliefs that inspired them are “quaint”. It is the paradox of “liberal” religious diversity. They value all this cultural/religious diversity and seem to respect it. Generally speaking, they really find it “quaint”. They usually don’t feel the same way about people’s religious convictions when it keeps them from getting government paid abortion on demand, however.
They tend to look at this stuff the way we looked at indian dances at Disneyland in the 1960’s. It may be “fantastic” and incredibly detailed. But it is also “quaint” to them.
Keep babbling nonsense, it fits!
Those of us in the Lord’s church do not follow men; we follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I know that bothers all of you nicolaitans, but if you read the last chapter of the book, you lose anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.