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 ...
I'd advise you to disregard what NYer wrote, he knows nothing about the matter. To begin with he says that “I was so hoping that the marriage had not taken place in an SSPX Chapel”, when you clearly responded that it was an SSPV chapel. I won't bother to respond to anything that he has posted, just to say that it is a complicated matter, and you should not seek an answer from nobodies on free republic.
If your sister married an SSPV traditionalist, he likely knows more than 99% of todays CHINOS (Catholics in name only), since from my experience he will have fear of God, a virtue which few Catholics posssess today. SSPVers, the same as SSPXers, do not use birth control, and thus have many children, that in itself shows that they are ready to sacrifice all the leisures of the world for God. That in and of itself, TOTALLY separates them from the CHINOS.
Your sister could not have found a husband from more serious religious group in all of Americanist Catholicism.
I myself am not an SSPVer, for I disagree with them on the point of sedevacanteism, however, I do understand why they come to that conclusion, and I don't have anything against them for that conclusion. There is no better source to find out about this than your brother in law and now likely, your sister.
Doesn’t their “irregular status” (to say the least) affect the validity of their marriage?
Their country was destroyed because they prayed facing the wrong direction? Wow. Your Protestantism is more demanding than anyone's "works" religion.
I suppose it's a good thing that everything you folks do is prescribed in detail--from the pointy roof to the wooden pews to the shape-note songbooks to pulpit the preacher stands behind (all prescribed in detail by Paul, no doubt). Wouldn't want to be like those awful Haitians who added to the Word of G-d by praying facing the wrong way and got their country destroyed because of it.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
read Matthew 24:27. The Son of Man will come from the east to the west. We face the east waiting for His return in Glory.
>>Not even the commitment of His life and teachings to writing?<<
God inspired. Everything else is the opinions of men.
>>read Matthew 24:27. The Son of Man will come from the east to the west. We face the east waiting for His return in Glory.<<
It is a “parable”. Key word: “as”. The point is not the direction. The point is that what happens on one side is seen on the other.
>>Their country was destroyed because they prayed facing the wrong direction? Wow. <<
I’ll say. Who would suggest such a thing?
"For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until He come." 1 Corinthians 11:26
shew means proclaim to those of you who were commissioned.
“Well explained - you’ve educated me. Thanks.”
Wow. Thank *you.*
I don’t think I’ve ever seen that response to a Catholic’s explanations before. What a pleasant surprise.
Now explain why we should pay any attention to what a nobody like you has to say?
Beautiful. The traditional Latin Mass is a truly beautiful experience.
My father, a Baptist minister, was not elated.
Having some Baptist relatives (particularly one aunt who is a Free Will Baptist) and inlaws who are Campbellites, I can fully, completely understand that.
I was a groomsmen and participated in the genuflecting out of respect for their tradition.
Thank you. Keep in mind that the purpose of your genuflections is out of reverence for the Lord, who we believe is truly and substantially present. While I acknowledge you may have some theological differences on that subject, your respect for our custom is truly appreciated.
For a Baptist like myself it was an interesting experience.
Having gone to a couple of Baptist services in my life, I can fully appreciate that.
Anyone know what’s the story behind the Catholic split in terms of traditional Latin mass, head coverings, etc. vs. today’s more progressive mass? I was told the sect was actually excommunicated.
It is a long, long history. Too long for this post. As far as the Society of St. Pius X (which is what I think you're referring to), their leader was excommunicated in 1988, not for being the leader of the institute that maintained the traditional Latin Mass, but for ordaining 4 bishops without the permission of the Holy See (which is required by our Canon Law). In fact, the next day after Archbishop Lefebvre (the founder of SSPX) was excommunicated, Pope John Paul II created the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in order to make sure that the clergy and people who followed Lefebvre out of devotion for the Latin Mass, and to make sure that the celebration of the Latin Mass would be preserved in the wake of that excommunication.
This was important enough that the current Pope utterly normalized the use of the Traditional Latin Mass (now known as the Extraordinary Form) and, in fact, has lifted the excommunications on the bishops that were illicitly ordained.
As for head coverings, if you look back on your own church's history, I'd bet that it was the norm for women to cover their heads. It is Scriptural, as well: 1 Cor 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraces her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. (You should read 1 Cor 11:1-16 for the full context)
As for myself, I think the roots of SSPX are deeper than simply the Latin Mass. I think it has to do a lot with modernism in the Church. Pope St. Pius X wrote an Encyclical Letter, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, back in 1907, which gave grave warnings about the infiltration of modernism in the Church. You might enjoy reading that, even as a Baptist (you might see some similar things happening in certain parts of your confession, as well).
As far as the Novus Ordo Missae ("today's more progressive Mass"), while I prefer the older form, I think that there is a lot of merit to the newer form when it is celebrated properly with due reverence. Unfortunately, due reverence is all too rare.
If you have other questions (why did they do that?) please ask. I am sure there will be a HUGE number of us Catholics who would be thrilled to answer any questions.
“I respect, on it’s own, NOTHING done by other men since Jesus life.”
If you think about it, YOPIOS requires that position.
If you concede that some men may be holier than others, wiser than others, or have assistance from the Holy Spirit not enjoyed by each individual, or if you concede that generations of men laboring down the centuries may add to and refine our understanding of the Scriptures in a way no single lifetime would allow...
Well, then, it becomes impossible to claim that one’s own understanding is as good as anyone else’s, or that one can open up the Bible on any old day and read any scripture, and understand it completely and correctly.
As G. K. Chesterton wrote, “There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.”
To maintain faith in YOPIOS, one must cavalierly dismiss twenty centuries of the spiritual and intellectual work product of history’s greatest minds and holiest men as nothing more than something done by other men, as though one could stay home from work one morning and recreate it by noon.
You certainly implied it in post 38.
The SSPV’s (and the SSPX’s) situation is the same as all the marriages performed in the Diocese of Campos Brazil. When Campos (Society of St. John Vianney were regularized by Rome, not one couple (to the public knowledge) was required to remarry. What does that tell you?
“not for being the leader of the institute that maintained the traditional Latin Mass, but for ordaining 4 bishops without the permission of the Holy See (which is required by our Canon Law).”
And neither is it that simple. There were, and still are, many in Holy Orders who wish to see the Tridentine Mass completely suppressed and forgotten.
Lefebvre ordained those Bishops without permission. That is true. But was it just defiance?
Negotiations between SSPX and the Vatican were under way. It had been agreed that SSPX would be allowed to ordain its own bishops, that it may also ordain its own priests. At the 11th hour, Lefebvre was suddenly told that, while he would be allowed to ordain bishops, he would not be able to choose them. They would be chosen, in effect, by the aforementioned enemies of the Tridentine Mass and the Church.
To have agreed to that would have been the death knell of SSPX and the Tridentine. Lefebvre’s defiance preserved the Tridentine, and, when that wrong is finally corrected and SSPX received back into the bosom of the Church, that will be acknowledged.
Many people deny that, reminding us that “In fact, the next day after Archbishop Lefebvre (the founder of SSPX) was excommunicated, Pope John Paul II created the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei...to make sure that the celebration of the Latin Mass would be preserved in the wake of that excommunication.”
Really? Did he protect “the Latin Mass,” which is to say the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin, or the Tridentine Mass, which is an entirely different matter? And would he have done anything at all had not Lefebvre forced his hand?
The “Santo Subito” types assume he would have; I think not.
Not affiliated with SSPX myself, but I have read some of the Saint’s writings. Intensely impressive. Prophetic.
If you concede that some men may be holier than others, wiser than others, or have assistance from the Holy Spirit not enjoyed by each individual, or if you concede that generations of men laboring down the centuries may add to and refine our understanding of the Scriptures in a way no single lifetime would allow...
Well, then, it becomes impossible to claim that one’s own understanding is as good as anyone else’s, or that one can open up the Bible on any old day and read any scripture, and understand it completely and correctly.
As G. K. Chesterton wrote, “There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.”
To maintain faith in YOPIOS, one must cavalierly dismiss twenty centuries of the spiritual and intellectual work product of history’s greatest minds and holiest men as nothing more than something done by other men, as though one could stay home from work one morning and recreate it by noon.
WORTH REPEATING!!!!! THANKS for the material. By the way, what does YOPIOS stand for exactly?
verdadjusticia:
YOPIOS, having read a little of Chesterton myself, refers most likely to “Your own personal interpretation of Scripture”. While he specifically never maybe used that terminology, he was a constant critic of Individulalism, which ultimately much of Protestantism ultimately relys on, i.e. I will read the bible for myself and determine what it means, etc.
One of my favorite Chesterton quotes is
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” - Orthodoxy, 1908
Here is a brief forward written about Chesterton for a book about him
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+splendour+of+truth.(COLUMNIST)-a0162183854
“Your own personal interpretation of Scripture”
Yup. There’s a nifty graphic that goes along with it, but I’m not set up for that just now. Maybe someone else will post it.
And He hasn't been on a Cross for 2000 years...
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.