We will ever see this style again? Yes if popes keep up the rupture between papacies. It doesn't take a clairvoyant to figure that out and we can thank Pope Francis for modeling the papal ruptures between papacies that may become institutionalized and make the papacy as individualistic as the pope sitting on the Chair of Peter.
I do not anticipate, clairvoyant that I am, that the modern missal will be reformed in any significant way within my lifetime because it has already been reformed in significant ways in my lifetime with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and its rubrics fortified. Certainly we have a reformed English translation that is superior to its predecessor but not perfect and thus we might see some tweaking of the priest's parts in the future but apart from us priests when this is done the laity will be clueless unless it is pointed out to them.
Like Pope Francis, I was formed in the era of great flexibility as it regards the missal's words, actions and style of celebration. Of course the grave danger in all of this is that the liturgy succumbs to the dictatorship of the personality of the particular priest and how he celebrates the Mass. It can reduce the celebration of the Mass to gross individualism. I would not call this 1970's approach to the liturgy the heyday of liturgical renewal but rather its spiral into liturgical anomie. It certainly isn't anything we want to encourage a new generation of priests to model and hopefully they won't.
However, there are some things that are built into the liturgy even if one "says the black and does the red." For example some priests, and Pope Francis is one of them, do not care to sing any part of the Mass either out of a false sense of an inability to carry a tune or they simply prefer the spoken Mass as it concerns priestly parts. Another priest may have an ability to chant his parts although he recognizes that he is not a virtuoso. Another priest may chant his parts in an "entertainment" way because his singing and chanting is that good. These are legitimate diversifications, although I would caution the priest who can sing like an entertainer not to do so at Mass but to chant like a priest.
The same is true of the altar arrangement. I think most parishes can still have a great deal of flexibility in how they will arrange their altar and sanctuaries within the context of that which is clearly permissible. While I love the Benedictine altar arrangement which is really the traditionally altar arrangement, I think it should be reserved for quite rectangular and large altars, not boxy small altars. This arrangement is best for ad orientem.
I have been quite pleased with how St. Joseph Church in Macon has its altar arrangement. We are blessed that our older altar wasn't ripped out in the 1970's. There was potential with that with a pastor two pastors previous to me. Keep in mind that the pastor emeritus who is still here became pastor in 1974 and I succeeded him in 2004. The one prior to him who had been an ultra conservative priest prior to the Council became an ultra radical liberal priest afterward and was quite iconoclastic and would have ripped this church to shreds liturgically had he remained pastor. Fortunately he married the parish secretary in 1974! And his replacement, my predecessor wasn't about to change anything in this church liturgically or otherwise.
So the large or tall six candlesticks are on the old altar which we now refer to as the "reredos" and we have four huge floor candlesticks flanking the altar of sacrifice that is free-standing. With the encouragement that Pope Benedict gave me, I placed a small but very nice crucifix on the center of it facing the celebrant when he celebrates Mass facing the congregation which is every Mass here except our EF Masses and our Sunday 12:10 PM Ordinary Form Mass. All this is clearly allowed in the GIRM and was there before Pope Benedict modeled this option for us.
I don't like six tall candlesticks and a crucifix on the altar itself when Mass is facing the people as it detracts I think from the Mass, unless you have an altar that is the size of the altars used in Rome which most parishes today do not have.
So, I think priests my age and older, Pope Francis generation of priests, and I am still befuddled that the current pope was ordained about 10 years before me, will celebrate Mass in the fashion and ethos of Pope Francis who has never moved from his 1970's style both positive and negative.
I think priests formed by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict will have a very different style and I think the next pope will come from the generation in which I was ordained where there is a mixed bag of those still nostalgic for the 1980's and others quite grateful for what Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict wrought liturgically and otherwise.
I see the current situation as an abnormal blip in history that will eventually be corrected.
But finally, I am quite grateful for Pope Francis putting skin on the two new dismissals of the Mass that Pope Benedict mandated, yes Pope Benedict mandated and these are:
"Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord."
and
"Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life."
The Mass impels us to move from piety to Christian charity in our everyday lives. This truth has always been and always will be no matter the kind of Mass that is celebrated or from which era. There is no difference in this call to faith, hope and love after Mass in either the OF Mass or the EF Mass. Thank you Pope Benedict for making the modern Roman Missal's dismissal of Mass clearly missionary and life changing.
In many ways Pope Francis is quite Bohemian (a person, as an artist or writer, who lives and acts free of regard for conventional rules and practices) modeling the "theology of rupture" that Pope Benedict wanted to move the Church away from. Pope Francis has done so, I firmly believe, not in the substance of Pope Benedict's doctrines but in Pope Benedict's style of liturgy and papacy. So we see the trappings of the papacy reduced and minimized by Pope Francis. We see him liturgically a bit neanderthal reaching back to the 1970's. We see Pope Francis a bit eccentric in his obsession with simplicity and lack of humility in wearing the dress of the papacy that is more monarchical looking and maybe a bit "prissy."
Humility is doing that which does not come naturally to a person, such as Pope Benedict renouncing the "Chair of Peter." Of course Pope Benedict had his eccentricities too, like the so-called red Prada shoes, the really, really lacy albs and the really, really eclectic variety of vestments he wore and bringing back the fannon. But I must say that Pope Benedict's eccentricities were never boring. Pope Francis eccentricities are novel but are quickly become boring.
40 comments:
Free-standing altars tend to be deeper (the priest doesn't have to reach over it to get to the tabernacle) and narrower. This facilitates concelebration but makes a solemn ad orientem Mass look rather cramped. The papal altar in St Peter's is quite deep, and before V2 the cross and candlesticks were placed along the centre line.
I think your tall flanking candlesticks work well. They draw attention to the altar and leave the mensa uncluttered.
If there are two concelebrating priests then having one elevate the paten and the other the chalice would not appear to contravene any rubric and is symmetrical. Pope Francis's worst liturgical solecism is ignoring the rubric for the Preface dialogue (GIRM 148). Deliberately flouting the GIRM as a matter of routine with all the world watching is inexcusable. The rubrics for the OF are already pared to the bone.
This pope has a stubborn streak which betokens pride, not humility. This is in contrast to the genuine humility of Benedict XVI and John XXIII, who put themselves at the service of the liturgy. There is talk that he might become the most hands-on pope since Pius X. In which case he needs a Merry del Val, and I can't see an obvious candidate.
The demonstrations of "individuality" that the 70's style liturgies provided often did little more than cause the faithful to wince every time they heard a priest deviate from the rubrics.
The problem with Pope Francis' nearly obsessive shows of humility is the precedent it sets. Now future pontiffs are going to face the temptations of thinking, "Well, I can't do THAT anymore, since Francis wouldn't do it" (live in papal apartments, ride on sedia gestatoria, wear a mozetta, etc). Instead there's going to be this temptation to "out humilify" previous popes (Thanks Paul VI). This demotion of papal dignity has done little more than give the media fodder to paint Benedict as some sort of arrogant aristocrat who somehow just "loved" all the amenities and honors the papacy provided. Methinks it would be a subtler form of true humility to bear the "trappings" of the papacy and worry a bit less about making humility into such a display.
consistency in trappings (and I'm not saying that some would be considered excessive today when compared to pre-Vatican II times) would reduce the person of the pope to simply being the pope, no matter who it is, no matter how holy or not, no matter how pious or not, no matter how humble or not. The example of the pope is to be put forth not the example of the personality of a particular pope, although his charisms and gifts should enrich the Church. So Pope Francis could be as humble as he is and still use some of the seemingly unhumble trappings of the papacy to his advantage.
It's not humility to throw away trappings that developed over 1,000 years. It's prideful to think one knows better than all those who came before. It's also a sin against piety to not hand on undefiled the Tradition as it was received, which includes those traditions flowing therefrom.
That said, I don't accuse this pope of these sins. He was paying no attention to the GIRM when he was archbishop (by washing women's feet) and he was being disobedient to Pope Benedict by preventing the Tridentine Mass after Summorum. The cardinals chose him to lead the Church either despite or because of these things. He's the Supreme Lawgiver after all and is free to do these things now that he is pope.
I disagree with those who claim he is modeling a liturgical style. Why? He clearly didn't think the last pope was modeling a liturgical style as he appears to have refused to follow suit. So, how can he now think he is the one modeling and expect others to follow suit?
Just to clear up some confusion in my mind, are there now two "Marcs" who make comments or is there the only one Marc who use to live in Macon and now in Montgomery or is there another who lives in Mississippi? I'm a bit confused because the Marc I know seems to have gone a metanoia unless there are two Marcs, please clarify.
But as to Marc's comments, because of the internet and instant communication and presenting papal Masses live on TV such as EWTN and on the internet, people now see the pope's liturgical style more than ever. I can remember as a child only seeing the Pope's midnight Mass televised and that was a big, big deal for you didn't see other Papal Masses televised.
So we are all copying the pope in liturgical style, or at least some. It seems more benign to copy Benedict and a step backward to copy Francis. What to do, what to do, Oh what are we to do?
I might add too, that sine Pope John Paul II was a world traveler, we saw papal liturgies in our home towns and in our country. Benedict continued this with his own twist on liturgy and the altar set-up not to mention vestments and albs.
There's only one Marc. I do live in Montgomery now, but was in Mississippi last weekend visiting family.
I'm not sure what you mean by "gone a metanoia"... So I can't answer that part!
I agree people see the Papal Masses more. Although I question just how many laity are watching these things. (Even I don't watch them and I pay pretty close attention to this stuff). I think there is an overemphasis on the pope to the exclusion of the diocesan bishop, partly because the pope gets news coverage and the bishop doesn't.
I can't really suggest how people should view the popes style except to say: he's the pope. No parish is going to be having liturgies on this scale. When the pope comes to Macon, go ahead and copy him. Until then, follow the GIRM carefully and do what the diocesan bishop says (unless it contradicts the GIRM).
Marc - You confuse that which is historical with that which is Traditional.
Fannons, red shoes, triple tiaras, lace, Benedictine altar arrangements, etc., are not part of Tradition, that which is revealed by God to be necessary for salvation. Nor do these things (trappings) flow from the Tradition. They are historical accretions and can be set aside without damaging in the least the Tradition that is the foundation of our Faith.
And, Good Father, if Pope Francis' style is becoming boring, then that is a good thing. Lace, shoes, fannons are not in the least essential and shold be basically invisible. The Faith, the Tradition, is what we should be attuned to, not how high he may elevate the species at the consecration or where he sits in the chapel praying before mass.
Fr. Kavanaugh, I agree with the majority of what you have written. I didn't mean to imply that these things are essential to the faith or for salvation. Assuredly, they are not.
I cannot, however, agree that they don't flow from the Tradition, forming part of the tradition. Our Catholic forebears surely saw some as important signs to point us to the Truth. Perhaps they are less important in modern times (it is the case after all that not all sacramentals find abundant use at all times).
So I do not say that some of these things can never be set aside, only that the process of doing so should not be capricious.
As far as lace, red shoes, and tiaras, I agree these things can alienate modern man from the truths of the faith and might be best left to history for now. There was a time, however, where they were an important reminder of papal power and prestige (and that time might come again). To that end, they served their purpose and the Church would likely not be in the situation she finds herself today (as a world wide institution) without them.
But I cannot follow your argument to is logical conclusion, which is the total elimination of all vestments and outward signs of authority and things deemed "trappings". For, once one starts to determine artificially what is "essential", one can dispense with many things haphazardly and arbitrarily.
There must be balance in these things. And all things must point to Truth and flow from Tradition. How things flow can obviously change over time.
I think liturgical garb for Ignotus is a clean t-shirt and a new pair of Nikes.
Let me add that ad orientem worship is surely part of the tradition, though. So much so that there is no tradition of versus populum in any apostolic liturgy (that I am aware of).
So, I agree there is no tradition of the so-called "Benedictine" altar arrangement as there was no need for such until recently when the tradition was ruptured.
So, one cannot honestly say ad orientem is an historical accretion. On the contrary, versus populum is the accretion, and results from modern man's turning toward himself instead of his Creator. And I agree this accretion should be eliminated as it supports an idea contrary and damaging to the Faith and Tradition. Surely, even on your own terms, it could be removed "without damaging in the least the Tradition that is the foundation of our Faith."
"So I do not say that some of these things can never be set aside, only that the process of doing so should not be capricious."
I think that this is the key. If something is going to be set aside, why is it set aside? Is it done out of true humility or is it done out of some sense of obligation to "the times in which one lives." Looking at the abandonment of the triregnum we can clearly see what Paul's motivation was. It wasn't done out of humility, but rather it was done to make a statement of the times. And that, in my opinion, is wrong.
The trappings conveyed and still convey something very central to the Church, the ability to give glory to God in an outward way. If God is who we think He is, then why wouldn't we want to offer Him our best foot forward, from an artistic point of view? I know that this is a very subjective thing, but it is clear that the art from the 18th century is much more refined and beautiful than the art of the abstract art of the 1960s. (Oh, I'm sure that some will argue with me on this, but whatever...my point stands)
The sad part about the Church today is that those who are interpreting art are not keeping up with the times. Here is my example...Those who insist that gold and lace and brocade, etc...should be replaced by polyester and poplin drapes are still living in the 1960s and 70s. Yet even secular society has passed them by. How many Polyester leisure suits and high waisted bell bottoms do you see on the streets? None, for all intents and purposes, but we are still subjected to that in church. On the street we have moved back to wool suits and a more classic line for women and that is considered tasteful....but not so for the purveyors of Catholic sensibilities in the parish. They want to hang on to that 1970s kitsch for as long as they can. And it just doesn't follow.
Yet, we see Benedict move back to a more classic style (albeit updated) and what do we get, we get comments like, " Lace, shoes, fannons are not in the least essential and shold be basically invisible. The Faith, the Tradition, is what we should be attuned to, not how high he may elevate the species at the consecration or where he sits in the chapel praying before mass."
Poppycock. The trappings elevate our minds and bring a sense of the sacred in a classical sense. The fact, is that the polyester brigade doesn't want to let go of a style that went out 20 years ago.
Timeless classics never go out of style, like a worsted wool 3 button in a business setting, the Roman cut will always fit in a Catholic setting.
The argument about trappings is so stupid. They serve a purpose. To deny that is to be dense. Not everything has to be immediately tied to salvation...but sometimes those things which lead one to embrace those things which are immediately tied to salvation make a difference. More banging against one tree, while missing the whole forest.
The 1970s schtick is passe.
Tradition is not limited to "that which is revealed by God to be necessary for salvation."
To add to Andy's point about pre- modern sacred art being "more beautiful" -- There's a reason why visitors to Macon flock to St. Joseph Church and not Holy Spirit Church. The majesty and age draw people in, leading them to things higher than themselves.
Sure, Holy Spirit is utilitarian (that is, it has all the things necessary for a Catholic church). But it is far from inspiring.
Of course, that's not Fr. Kavanaugh's fault just as it isn't to Fr. McDonald's credit. It's a statement of fact.
So true, Saint Joseph is not narcissistic simply looking inward but is built to draw, attract and evangelize, whereas Holy Spirit Church, what can we say, it is only for the self-satisfied there and no outreach of any kind as attested by the number of RCIA people they had this year!
You may want to see on the National Catholic Register website, 'Pope Francis and the Reform of the Laity.'
Here is a snippet:
Clericalism ails the clergy when they become too self-referential rather than missionary. But it afflicts laypeople worse, when they begin to believe that the fundamental service God is asking of them is to become greeters, lectors or extraordinary ministers of holy Communion at Church rather than to live and spread the faith in their families, workplaces, schools neighborhoods and beyond.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-the-reform-of-the-laity?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-04-11%2021:41:01#ixzz2QGTFHdaV
Before EWTN and the internet I saw only two televised papal Masses from Rome. (I don't remember watching Paul VI's coronation although I would have been 12 at the time). The first was for the opening of the Holy Year 1975, and I remember Paul VI not singing very much at all. The second, about ten years later, was the Mass of Easter Sunday celebrated inside St Peter's by JP II. Because of the time difference it went out at 9 am and we were able to watch most of it before going up to the London Oratory for the 11 am Solemn Mass. I couldn't help noticing how poor the liturgy and music were compared with the Oratory.
What went on in Rome (liturgically speaking) wasn't important; what went on in the church you attended was. I can't see any priest changing his ars celebrandi because of what Pope Francis does, although that doesn't excuse him from not setting an example. JP II used to do a half turn from side to side at the Elevation and some priests copied this, presumably because they thought it was trendy; Francis doesn't do this, although Benedict did in St Peter's.
Watch John XXIII. He faced all points of the compass when elevating both Host and Chalice. He was well-known for his attention to liturgical detail, so there must have been a historical precedent for this.
Pater Ignotus's assertion that it is good that Francis' more austere style is boring to us is illustrative about the entire problem plaguing the modern Church. Everything about modernism is boring and its proof is in what the rupture has done to Mass attendance, vocations and the average Catholic's knowledge of their faith.
Tradition gives us visual beauty. Modernism gives us modernism redux in barren buildings. Tradition imposes a sense of sacredness and mystery in the Mass. Modernism makes it "the Lord's Supper". Tradition calls young men and women to lives of sacrifice to do good and battle against evil. Modernism has reduced evil to mental illness and bad ecological policy. Tradition challenges. Modernism tells us how wonderful we are, so much so that it eventually sounds empty. Whether it's tradition with a "small t" or a "capital T", let us remember the words of Pius XII:
"I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own tomb."
Benedict XVI was a pope who refused to apologize for being the pope. We need some continuity on THAT concept.
I meant to write that modernism gives us "Protestantism redux".
Marc - In what way do you see lace, fannons, etc, flowing from Divine Revelation. It is that Revelation, not the historical accretions such as vesture, philosophical systems, or styles of music, that constitute Tradition. (Note the "T" here.)
Holy Spirit may not be inspiring to you, but not all people are inspired by the same things or the same styles of things. St. Joseph Church is a masterpiece of, well, a certain style that many people find attractive. Personally, I'd rate the chapel at the Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyers as far more inspiring, but that's personal taste.
Pin/Gene - In your tradition, calling a gay man a "fag" or telling jokes that disparage women (they don't need watches 'cause stoves have clocks) is the order of the day. So I don't put much store in your views of what does/does not constitute Tradition.
Good Father, you said you'd give us Msgr. John Cuddy's convert numbers after I gave you Holy Spirit's numbers for last Easter. Are you going to live up to your word? Just the last 5 years of his pastorate should suffice.
It was hard to decifer the records as so many Catholics went through his convert classes and he didn't confirm them, so the confimration of adults at Pentecost would be the best record, so from that I gleamed:
2000: 35
2001: 32
2002: 38
2003: 40
2004: 30
Oh, yes, PI, please tell us now how many you had at your Easter Vigil this year. We had 14 baptisms and 28 full communions. How many did you have, I don't recall the number.
Well, since these things have been party of the outward trappings of the Church for several centuries, I believe you have the burden of showing they do not flow from tradition.
But, since stuffing burdens will get us nowhere, I'll say that I never used the word Revelation as you imply. I said the trappings flow from Tradition.
The fannon, for example, has been in use since the 8th Century and shows forth the Pope's "rank" much like other vestments delineate other cleric's rank. So, it flows from the Tradition that the Pope is universal pontiff and different than other bishops in that way.
Lace, which is difficult to make and delicate and expensive, flows from the Tradition of offering only the best of human handiwork to God. That Tradition goes all the way back to Genesis.
There are reasons for all these things that relate back to Tradition. That doesn't make them permanent fixtures, as I detailed before. And, I'm not confused about the difference between these things and Sacred Tradition.
I wonder if you could explain for my edification, though, what makes something not an historical accretion? Perhaps approaching the subject more broadly than always referencing particular vestments or clothing you don't like will benefit the discussion.
And i agree the Conyers monastery is quite beautiful in its simplicity. Things need not be ornate to be beautiful.
Marc - No, you asserted that the trappings flow from Tradition. You said, "It's also a sin against piety to not hand on undefiled the Tradition as it was received, which includes those traditions flowing therefrom."
The burden is yours to show that your assertion is so. Where in the Church's Tradition do we find the roots of fannons, maniples, gold thread, ostrich feather fans, etc? These are historical indeed, but they are not Traditional (Cap T) and discontinuing their use is far from sinful.
If your argument is "We have to use the best" then we have "sinned" by using gold when platinum and rhodium are more precious. Surely there are better carved statues available than those in St. Juseph Church, as appealing as those might be. You see, the argument "use the best or most expensive" isn't supported by the facts. We don't use the "best" or the "most expensive" and nothing in Tradition (Cap T) supports the assertion that we must.
If poplin drapes instead of silk suit the spiritual needs of a particular congregation or community, then poplin drapes they should have.
PI I thought for sure you would include in your last comment the number of RCIA candidates, catechumens received into your parish at the Easter Vigil of 2013?
I've shown the relationship between these particular items and Tradition. I likewise agree that, over time, they may be dispensed with. I simply said that process should not be capricious. Dropping these traditions (which are trappings) in an arbitrary manner is objectively sinful because it rejects the efforts of prior generations and substitutes our subjective preferences.
I never said we must use the most expensive items in worship. The entire Tradition of Old and New Testament worship supports the idea that we offer the best (or first fruits) to God. Of course, what is "best" changes over time and place.
I look forward to your explanation I asked for in the second half of my previous post. I think I just don't understand your larger point and what flows therefrom.
If these things are a thousand years old, then the discussion of whether they're Traditional or not misses an important point. Something can be very valuable to the spiritual life of Catholics and the Church without being an unchanging part of Divine Revelation. If they've been around that long--practiced, studied, refined in light of centuries of human experience--it IS prideful, as well as myopic and what I like to call temporally provincial, AND a sin against piety, to throw them out or make severe modifications to them, even if one technically has the authority to do so. I suppose Pope Francis, by PI's rule, could officially suppress the Rosary. Could anyone (other than modernist heretics) argue with a straight face that such suppression would be a) good for the spiritual life of the Church or b) an act of humility in the exercise of papal power?
In fact, throwing out long-established practices in such a manner goes beyond pride to arrogance. The members of the VII generation that impoverished the liturgy obviously thought that they knew way, way better than the preceding fifty generations of Catholics combined. Read that sentence again and tell me that the VII generation wasn't arrogant. Whether or not the members of that generation had the authority to make those changes doesn't diminish that arrogance one bit.
It's liturgical hubris caused and fueled by "recentism". And that is looking at it positively. Really, at its most deliberate, it is iconoclasm rooted in modernism.
Well said, Anonymous 5.
Ignotus, LOL! This from the Priest who would not answer the question whether he believed in the Real Presence or the Resurrection of Christ. The Priest who counseled Millies not to answer the same question a while back because it was "a trap." LOL! The Priest who, on this
blog, angrily defended the female Episcopal Bishop who has openly avowed her disbelief in the Divinity of Christ...and the Priest who used another female unbeliever's book in his Bible study. Yeah, Ignotus, you are a piece of work.
And the Priest (Ignotus) who steadfastly refuses to answer a simple yes or no question about allowing the TLM to be said at his parish.
Good Father - I answered your question about how many were received or baptized at Holy Spirit. You can look it up - that's what I do with older posts.
It would seem that the number entering the church under the former pastor is pretty much the same as under your pastorate. In the former, there was no Latin, no "east-facing" worship, little incense, no "proper" chanting, yet the numbers were there. And the people of God said, "Hmmm..."
Anon 5 - Liturgical items cannot, by definition, be part of the Tradition (cap T). The use of beeswax was required for candles, but that was never Traditional. Placing the paten under the corporal was required, but never Traditional. The number of swings of the thurible was prescribed, but that, too, was never Traditional.
Adlai - No one at my parish is asking for the EF mass.
Marc - You have asserted that "trappings" flow from Tradition. Tradition (cap T) is based in Divine Revelation. I find nothing in Divine Revelation even remotely connected with fannons, lace, or ostrich feather fans. perhaps you can point the way.
The things we of European descent find "precious" or "the best" are not considered so in other cultures or parts of the world. Our "best" does not consist of the material things we use to decorate our churches or make our vessels or vestments, but the position of our hearts under grace.
These are the cultural or historical accretions that can be set aside with no fear of sin.
Fr. Kavanaugh, can you explain how the use of the altar flows from Tradition and Divine Revelation? Or, if you believe the use of an altar is likewise an historical accretion, can you explain why you believe that to be the case?
Marc - Altars are Scriptural, therefore they are part of Sacred Tradition. See Gen 8:20; Gen 12:7; Gen 12:8; Gen 13:4; Gen 13:18; Ex 20"24-26; Ex 32:5; etc etc.
Through Sacred Scripture God reveals that which is True and necessary for Salvation. The offering of sacrifice upon an altar is necessary for salvation. It was offered once for all time on the altar of the Cross; that unique sacrifice is re-presented in an unbloody manner on the altars of our churches.
Altars, therefore, are not an accretion.
The position of the altar in the church, the material of which the altar is made, the designs (if any) used to decorate the altar, the cloths used to cover the altar, the candles placed on or near the altar, etc - these are historical accretions that can and have changed.
Ignotus: re liturgy not being part of
T radition; yep, that's what I said (or at least am perfectly willing to concede for our purposes here). I also said that for our purposes here, it doesn't matter that it isn't part of T radition. Specifially, I said that even so, when one mucks around with the liturgy in this manner, one is being arrogant. You may want to re-read my comment again, because your response is in fact nonresponsive.
Oh, so something must be found in Scriputre in order to be part of Sacred Tradition and avoid being labeled by you as an historical accretion.
Ven. Pius XII:
"[I]it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See."
Marc - You asked specifically about altars. I answered specifically about altars. If you want to widen the discussion to the level of principles that define what is or is not part of Sacred Tradition, do so. Traps rarely catch me.
Father, I previously asked, "I wonder if you could explain for my edification, though, what makes something not an historical accretion? Perhaps approaching the subject more broadly than always referencing particular vestments or clothing you don't like will benefit the discussion."
Since you couldn't do so, I asked a specific question about altars.
Since you're falling into the same pattern as usual when I actually participate in the discussion by responding and you insist on obfuscating, I'm just going to stop now.
Have a good weekend.
Regarding Adlai's post and PI's response....Yes, PI, you are right about the folks at Holy Spirit, but many of the faithful at MHT requested the TLM during your brief tenure and you torpedoed /squashed it even though there was a priest of the Augusta deanery willing to say the TLM on a regular basis.
PIWMP - I did not agree to the celebration of the EF at Holy Trinity because there was no need for the EF. It was not possible to rely on the priest who was willing to celebrate the EF for a variety of reasons. As you are aware, that priest is now gone. And there were a few other issues at HT that demanded my attention, as you will recall.
Marc - If a practice (the use of lace, beeswax candles, ostrich feather fans, fannons) is not part of the Church's Tradition - those teachings that are defined through the ordinary and/or extraordinary magisterium of the Church - it can be considered an accretion. Some of these we recognize as beneficial and we retain. Some we recognize as unhlepful of a hindrance, and we change or omit them.
There is no sin whatsoever in changing those things that can change.
Post a Comment