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 ...
So the Catholic church is encouraging and condoning it's good Catholic boy to live in sin with his illegitimate room mate...
Man, what a religion...
verdadjustica:
The SSPV, the sedevacantist, are I would think seen much differently than the SSPX. The SSPX at least pray for Pope Benedict and recognize he is the legitimate Bishop of Rome while still having questions about Vatican II and how it sqaures with the Tradition before it.
The SSPV think that all Popes starting with Pope John XXIII were not valid Popes. Now, the sacraments administered by the SSPV while being valid would not be licit. My guess is if an SSPV would come into full communion with the Catholic Church, just like Baptism and Confirmation, those Sacraments would be recognized.
Perhaps I am wrong on that point but I do believe the SSPV and SSPX are seen differently.
Much earlier...
.Eze 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
Hard for Americans wedded to the Puritan minimalist idea of Church theology to grasp but architects designed and built with the conscious purpose of rendering in stone the theology of the relationship between Christ and His Church. The church was "oriented", i.e. its chancel pointed to the East to greet the coming of the "Sun of Justice", the "Orient from on high"
It may not have been so hard for them to grasp as you think...They, after all, believed the scriptures...
They likely knew the consequences for facing the east for the purpose of worship are not pretty...
Eze 8:17 Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.
Eze 8:18 Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.
Actually, long (long) before Mohammed was born, Christian Churches faced East toward's Jerusalem, and, Jesus 2nd Coming.
Christian graves too, are all supposed to have the feet pointed east, toward Jesus, for the Resurrection, so Christians will rise, facing Him. (and in Arlington Cemetery at least, that is the case...)
Also long before the Church, the Prophet Daniel was thrown to the lions den, because he dared open his windows (South West, actually) toward Jerusalem to pray.
So while the custom of praying toward the East is actually Judeo-Christian, it's never been the absurd, absolute rule that it is in superstitious Islam.
dsc:
I think the issues go much further than just the Traditional Form of the Roman Rite, i.e. the Roman Liturgy as celebrated before the Second Vatican Council. In addition to the Liturgy, Church in the Modern World, the Church and the State issues, etc, are also issues that were questioned and the entire hermaneutic of interpretation of Vatican II with all that came before.
As we get further and further from the Council, the authentic interpretation gets seen more and more as the “Spirit of VII types” slowly pass from the scene.
“So the Catholic church is encouraging and condoning it’s good Catholic boy to live in sin with his illegitimate room mate...”
It cracks me up when folks are so anti-Catholic that they jump the gun and post stuff that completely ignores what has been posted in the thread. I reckon such folks must think that any chance to make the Church look bad is too valuable to pass up, even if it makes them seem like fools.
“Man, what a religion...”
I hope such posts continue, for the sake of the lurkers.
Freegards
Why the "westward facing" Altars?
The Crucifix and the TABERNACLE should be center of ALL Catholic Churches.
What did I miss.....................?
There are some progressives in my Church who want to make modifications to the building.
Some whacky design that very few are aware of.
My only question is (and the only one of importance) is.....will the Tabernacle be center?
........no reply as of yet. However, the majority want it that way.
No worries. The Church that Jesus founded will be here until the end of time.
If the "design committee" doesn't quite do it right, there will be no changes, because there will be no contributions.
Just the way it is.
All my family who have passed on are buried facing east, to greet the Lord at the Second Coming. They have been for over 250 years, looking at the current, active family cemtery, the inactive older one before that, and the inactive oldest one dating to the mid-1700’s before that.
At dawn on Easter, many if not most churches in my area have adopted the tradition of the Moravian Church, and have an outdoor Sunrise Service, facing east, with the familiar “The Lord is RISEN” from the pastor at the very moment the sun peeks over the horizon, answered by the congregation “The Lord is Risen INDEED” in return. It’s really quite moving.
Other than this, I am unaware of any directional preference. Pastors engage the congregation, as they are preaching to that congregation. Facing away would quite literally be preaching to the choir.
So, I can’t pretend to understand what facing west has to do with anything. The only orientation as far as direction that I associate with Christianity is east.
>>You certainly implied it in post 38.<<
No offense, but I did not imply it. You inferred it. I was merely making a statement that traditions are hard to kill off. I used the Christian/Haiti/voodoo reference as an example because it is one I can speak to.
Human traditions, according to what I read in the New Testament, are almost never a good thing.
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.
Well, that is true. And they thought they had succeeded under the pontificate of Paul VI.
Frankly, the situation with the French Church has been gravely disordered for centuries, particularly since the French Revolution. That is another issue that must be kept in mind when trying to understand the SSPX movement.
And would he have done anything at all had not Lefebvre forced his hand?
Well, that is very possibly true. Had he not done something, he likely would have had a full-blown schism on his hands.
Keep in mind who I wrote my previous comments to. It might explain them a lot.
The Viking Kitties have paid a visit late in the night last night...
BK: Tell your friend he’s mistaken. It’s for the edification of all.
RR: Maybe I was being too brief. It was my take on what he said.
If either of you two are interested, there is a rather extensive article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia about the subject, discussing the history of stained glass from the earliest times.
In describing the work of the 12th and 13th Centuries, it said the following;
The range of subjects represented being limited by the paramount object of all ecclesiastical decorations of the Middle Ages, viz. the instruction of the illiterate and promotion of piety among the people, these windows present scenes from Biblical history and the lives of the saints, and symbolic portrayals of the dogmas of the Church. In fact they were sermons which "reached the heart through the eyes instead of entering at the ears". But their choice of subjects was not made at random; it fell under the same rule that guided theencyclopedias of the time in their classification of the universe, commencing with God and the creation of angelic beings, and so on thorough nature, science, ethics, and history. The windows were indeed poems in glass, "The first canto, reflecting the image of God as the Creator, the Father, and the giver of all good gifts; the second, nature, organic and inorganic; the third, science; the fourth, the moral sense; and lastly, the entire world". Where there were not enough windows in a church to carry out the complete scheme, one or more portions were represented.
You need to keep in mind the literacy rate in the 12th and 13th centuries, before the moveable type press was invented by a couple of hundred years, was almost non-existant -- basically only the very wealthy would be taught to read. And that made sense, as even the smallest books, which would either have to be hand-copied or printed from individually engraved plates, would cost more than several years' salary for all but the wealthiest people. (i.e., why learn to read if there would be nothing to read)
For what it's worth.
Even in the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest faces the congregation when preaching to them (we call it giving the homily).
He faces toward the altar (which is at the back of the Sanctuary; i.e., Liturgical East) during the prayers, the consecration, etc. He is leading the congregation and praying with them and for them to Christ. Thus it is logical that he is facing Christ, along with the Congregation.
I prefer that rather than having a freestanding altar. The traditional fashion takes a lot of the visual emphasis off from the priest and places it on Christ, where it belongs.
“I think the issues go much further than just the Traditional Form of the Roman Rite, i.e. the Roman Liturgy as celebrated before the Second Vatican Council.”
Sure, that was just one line of attack. An important one, though.
“As we get further and further from the Council, the authentic interpretation gets seen more and more as the “Spirit of VII types” slowly pass from the scene.”
I have an intellectual issue that perhaps keeps me from seeing the good in Vat II, presuming that there was some.
Those “Spirit of VII types” were and are the same as those Pope Saint Pius X called “enemies of the Church. Pope Paul VI had to have known of their presence. How could he have failed to see that calling a council would be setting a match to tinder, that it would provide the theological leftists with the opening(s) they needed to…well, to do what they have done? Stupid, stupid, stupid. It played right into their hands.
I certainly don’t claim to understand everything that was decided at Vat II, and after, when—prepare to be offended—when Satan’s influence gave us the inferior liturgy with which we have been struggling for so long. So perhaps there is some good in there somewhere. However, down here at my level, everything I see that is attributable to Vat II or consequent “reforms” of the Church is deplorable.
The Masses in this diocese span the gamut from awful to horrible. If I had had to listen to one more note of the ghastly noise the “musicians” were making last Sunday I’d have screamed. Every note of it could have been taken from a protestant hymnal of the 1950s, but not even the Protestants of that era played that music as though they were at a hootenanny in a honkey-tonk.
Homilies are delivered by the deacons, rarely the priests, and some of the theology could have been dreamed up by George Carlin. I don’t know if they have room-temperature IQs, or they think their parishioners do. Last Sunday the guy was babbling something about how Our Lord was resurrected on “the eighth day of the week.” Never did figure out what that was supposed to be about.
Lately, “Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith” has become “Let us proclaim the Mystery of *OUR* Faith.” What’s up with that? Is the Catholic faith just something that *we* do, with no wider implications for mankind, while other faiths with their own mysteries practice equally valid religions? I don’t think that’s what the Church says.
And while they halt the Mass for ten minutes so they can have their Assembly of God/Pentecostal Holiness/Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist orgy of hand shaking, the priest demonstrates that he knows better than the Church what is proper by coming down into his “audience” to socialize. I wonder if he even knows that he is not supposed to do that?
No, I do the Assembly of God, Pentecostal Holiness, and Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists a disservice. I don’t remember seeing them doing anything as inappropriate, as downright irreverent and theologically bankrupt, as what they call a “sign of peace” around here. Although I do have to admit that it is entirely congruent with the musical “performance.”
Guess I’ll skip over the platoons of “ministers of the Eucharist,” the hand-holding during the Pater Noster and its protestantized ending, the wreckovated church with its altar facing north about halfway down the side of the building, which was constructed facing the East, and the fact that it’s easier to come face to face with a leprechaun around here than a priest. Which might be a blessing, considering that our bishop is still putting sex offenders back in parishes.
What, you can’t make it to the single hour of Confession on Saturday afternoon? Well, just telephone and make an appointment. Except that you can’t get the priests on the phone, and they take weeks to call back, if they ever do. Dear Lord, send us one faithful priest. Just one.
Oh, well, sorry for the rant. Sometimes I just get to feeling cheated.
Thank you for your reply and the education. I remind my family that it was neither a Catholic or Baptist who went to heaven first. It was a saved sinner that never attended church!
Mike :)
Thank you for your responses and education!
I’m so glad to see you again!
>>With all due respect this thread was not caucused, i.e. it was open for discussion<<
So only caucused threads need stay on subject?
It was on topic and are you the thread police? Really?
>>It was on topic and are you the thread police? Really?<<
It wasn’t on topic. It was about Islam.
And I asked a simple question of the poster, then you jumped in.
Thread Police much.
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.