A priest uses during Mass a hand puppet and shows it feeding from a thurible! What other outrageous antics are we to expect from the ultra progressives and their puppet Masses? Will it never end?
I suspect they were suppressed as was the Cappa Magna for the OF Mass, but being suppressed doesn't mean that these couldn't be used, but I've never seen it at an OF Mass. I was MC at the Cathedral of 6 years and the ceremonial for bishops at that time certainly did not see the bishop using these.
The minions of Vat II could not allow any reminders of God's majesty and sovereignty, any notions that He should be approached in fear and trembling to remain. We must celebrate the awesomeness of our humanity. Whoop-ti-doo!
"It is a response to those who protested against the use of this pontifical garment, which is still permitted by the current Ceremonial of Bishops (§1200). Mgr Brankin’s letter offered an interesting perspective on the use of the cappa magna, and its symbolism, which I had not encountered before:
"The capa magna does indeed represent the finery of the world, its power and prestige. That is why after his entrance wearing it, the prelate is publicly stripped of this finery and humbled before the congregation. Then, vestment by vestment, the bishop is clothed in the new man of which St Paul speaks, including the baptismal alb, the dalmatic of charity, the stole of pardon and the chasuble of mercy. When finally clothed in Christ, the prelate makes a second entrance into the church to begin the eucharistic celebration in persona Christi, the visible head of the body, the church.
"It was a clear statement that the power and prestige of the world have no place at the altar, but it is expressed in a liturgical ritual or symbol, which, unfortunately, are often lacking in the contemporary rites and thus hard to grasp."
One wonder how gloves remind us of God's majesty and sovereignty.
"The capa magna does indeed represent the finery of the world, its power and prestige. That is why after his entrance wearing it, the prelate is publicly stripped of this finery and humbled before the congregation."
That a prelate would live a life of finery, power, and prestige away from the altar, then have to be stripped of that finery, power, and prestige to approach the altar is, I suspect, one of the concerns that Pope Francis has raised with us.
When your life away from the altar does not mirror your life at the altar, there is a disconnect that needs to be reformed.
"When your life away from the altar does not mirror your life at the altar, there is a disconnect that needs to be reformed."
Unless, perhaps, we believe that in the Eucharistic sacrifice we are transported from the world here below to be united at the altar with the heavenly liturgy (CCC 1326).
"When your life away from the altar does not mirror your life at the altar, there is a disconnect that needs to be reformed."
This was why it was so important to turn away from God and toward the people in the Novus Ordo. Well said. Too bad they were so influenced by the world and their princely power over the people that those cardinal reformers failed to institute a reorientation toward God instead of themselves.
What is worse: wearing a cappa magna and being stripped of such before the Mass or setting oneself up as the center of the worship itself?
Henry - "1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all."
We are united with the heavenly liturgy WHILE we remain a part of the world below. This is not quite the participation we hope to have after death which you seem to imply.
Thanks for the research, Henry. I'm ambivalent about the usefulness of these episcopal items, and I think they could fade away without causing too much distress. Personally, I'm more concerned about keeping liturgical vesture, gestures and postures oriented towards the Almighty, and away from ourselves. But this is still a funny post.
JBS - What a readers says a poster "implies" is usually entirely in the mind of the reader, not the poster.
In Gene's case, he will "read into" anything I post due to the animus he bears toward me. That's his problem, not mine.
He will continue to tell you that he REALLY knows what I (and others) mean by our posts. but, of course, he is wrong. And the tragedy is he's not interested in knowing what others post, because he is "in a position" to know all....
But aren't episcopal gloves worn with the liturgical vesture of a bishop (dalmatic with chasuble over it) along with the crozier and mitre?
Along with them (and worn with a bishop's liturgical vestments) there were (are) buskins (medieval sock-like leggings with tapes to bind them the the leg) and episcopal sandals or slippers. Were these also "suppressed" or are they technically still licit for use in the OF?
I am ambivalent about buskins and sandals, but for items that are seen and/or have real symbolic value, such as the dalmatic, maniple and to some extent the gloves, I think they should be maintained.
Ignotus, there is a large number of people on this blog who have read between your lines, as well. Several who are far more perceptive than I, and some who have experienced you in person agree with my assessment. So, don't put it off on mean ol' Gene. People are not stupid and they know falsehood and progressivism when they see it. The fact is, no one knows what you mean by many of your posts because you prevaricate and avoid answering direct questions like the one asked you by another blogger about whether you believed in the Real Presence and the bodily resurrection of Christ. You said that the question was some kind of trap. LOL! Now how could a question like that possibly be a "trap" for a Catholic Priest or any Catholic. If he can't or won't answer it, it can only mean one thing. I am very interested in what others on this blog post, as anyone who reads my posts should be able to tell from my responses to them. I am not in a "position to know all" as you taunt, only to know falsehood and dishonesty when I read it.
ytc, I am in total agreement with your comment at 11:19--I was just curious about the status of those items. Personally, I think a nice pair of conservative black lace-up dress shoes with all leather soles is just fine for any cleric (or layman for that matter).
Pin/Gene - You will continue to read into what I post, making up my meanings for me. You can't deal with what I say directly, because you can't find any evidence of apostasy, heresy, or schism in it. Since I am not an apostate, a heretic, or a schismatic, and since you won't find that in my posts, preaching, or writing, you have to make it up out of your own fantasy and fear.
I never said the question about the Real Presence was a trap. I said that I was not subject to your inquisitorial examinations. I serve at the bishop's pleasure, not yours. (And since you think so little of bishops, that carries no weight with you. Again, that's your problem, not mine.)
And regardless of how I answer your questions, you will read into them what you want, so why should I bother?
The ONLY meaning you can legitimately take away from my refusal to submit to your oversight is that . . . I will not submit to your oversight.
Beyond that, whatever you assume from my refusal to answer is entirely your thought, not mine.
And I'm still wondering how gloves remind us of God's majesty and sovereignty.
Once again, deceiver, you are being dishonest. It was never me who asked you if you believed in the Real Presence and the bodily resurrection. It was another blogger and, I believe, he asked you twice. So, you cannot use the dodge that it was my being "inquisitorial" that kept you from answering. No, it was yet another blogger who finds you to be prevaricating, double-speaking, and dishonest. That camp seems to be growing, so can it really be that the problem is all with our perception? OH, and Ignotus, I would desire no oversight over you at all. That is your fantasy...however, had I oversight over you I would have fired you long ago. LOL!
27 comments:
That's a very nice image.
Actually, it's quite modernist in its focus.
HA HA HA
I wonder if Linda Ronstadt will do a duet with this one - not really a Muppet, but close.
That's a surprisingly abstract hand puppet for the intended purpose.
Seriously, I know that this photo is from an EF Mass but I am just curious--were episcopal gloves "suppressed" for the Novus Ordo (OF) Mass?
I suspect they were suppressed as was the Cappa Magna for the OF Mass, but being suppressed doesn't mean that these couldn't be used, but I've never seen it at an OF Mass. I was MC at the Cathedral of 6 years and the ceremonial for bishops at that time certainly did not see the bishop using these.
The minions of Vat II could not allow any reminders of God's majesty and sovereignty, any notions that He should be approached in fear and trembling to remain. We must celebrate the awesomeness of our humanity. Whoop-ti-doo!
Two questions for John Nolan:
1. Whether the current OF Pontificale Romanum (ceremonial for bishops) continues to provide for the use of the cappa magna.
2. Whether Cardinal Burke has used the cappa magna in an OF Mass in England.
In regard to the first question, I now see the 2012 Catholic Herald article
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/07/07/in-defence-of-the-cappa-magna/
"It is a response to those who protested against the use of this pontifical garment, which is still permitted by the current Ceremonial of Bishops (§1200). Mgr Brankin’s letter offered an interesting perspective on the use of the cappa magna, and its symbolism, which I had not encountered before:
"The capa magna does indeed represent the finery of the world, its power and prestige. That is why after his entrance wearing it, the prelate is publicly stripped of this finery and humbled before the congregation. Then, vestment by vestment, the bishop is clothed in the new man of which St Paul speaks, including the baptismal alb, the dalmatic of charity, the stole of pardon and the chasuble of mercy. When finally clothed in Christ, the prelate makes a second entrance into the church to begin the eucharistic celebration in persona Christi, the visible head of the body, the church.
"It was a clear statement that the power and prestige of the world have no place at the altar, but it is expressed in a liturgical ritual or symbol, which, unfortunately, are often lacking in the contemporary rites and thus hard to grasp."
Fr. Socko!
One wonder how gloves remind us of God's majesty and sovereignty.
"The capa magna does indeed represent the finery of the world, its power and prestige. That is why after his entrance wearing it, the prelate is publicly stripped of this finery and humbled before the congregation."
That a prelate would live a life of finery, power, and prestige away from the altar, then have to be stripped of that finery, power, and prestige to approach the altar is, I suspect, one of the concerns that Pope Francis has raised with us.
When your life away from the altar does not mirror your life at the altar, there is a disconnect that needs to be reformed.
"When your life away from the altar does not mirror your life at the altar, there is a disconnect that needs to be reformed."
Unless, perhaps, we believe that in the Eucharistic sacrifice we are transported from the world here below to be united at the altar with the heavenly liturgy (CCC 1326).
"When your life away from the altar does not mirror your life at the altar, there is a disconnect that needs to be reformed."
This was why it was so important to turn away from God and toward the people in the Novus Ordo. Well said. Too bad they were so influenced by the world and their princely power over the people that those cardinal reformers failed to institute a reorientation toward God instead of themselves.
What is worse: wearing a cappa magna and being stripped of such before the Mass or setting oneself up as the center of the worship itself?
Henry - "1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all."
We are united with the heavenly liturgy WHILE we remain a part of the world below. This is not quite the participation we hope to have after death which you seem to imply.
Ignotus, You are being deliberately dense...but, that is ok, we are used to it...or maybe it isn't deliberate.
Thanks for the research, Henry. I'm ambivalent about the usefulness of these episcopal items, and I think they could fade away without causing too much distress. Personally, I'm more concerned about keeping liturgical vesture, gestures and postures oriented towards the Almighty, and away from ourselves. But this is still a funny post.
Is it acceptable to correct people on what they seem to imply? Or, should we first seek clarification on what was intended?
If you correct them on what they imply, they will tell you if it is what they intended.
JBS - What a readers says a poster "implies" is usually entirely in the mind of the reader, not the poster.
In Gene's case, he will "read into" anything I post due to the animus he bears toward me. That's his problem, not mine.
He will continue to tell you that he REALLY knows what I (and others) mean by our posts. but, of course, he is wrong. And the tragedy is he's not interested in knowing what others post, because he is "in a position" to know all....
But aren't episcopal gloves worn with the liturgical vesture of a bishop (dalmatic with chasuble over it) along with the crozier and mitre?
Along with them (and worn with a bishop's liturgical vestments) there were (are) buskins (medieval sock-like leggings with tapes to bind them the the leg) and episcopal sandals or slippers. Were these also "suppressed" or are they technically still licit for use in the OF?
Gloves and the cappa are mentioned as being able to be used in the OF.
Buskins and sandals and the maniple are not mentioned, but neither are they forbidden.
I am ambivalent about buskins and sandals, but for items that are seen and/or have real symbolic value, such as the dalmatic, maniple and to some extent the gloves, I think they should be maintained.
Ignotus, there is a large number of people on this blog who have read between your lines, as well. Several who are far more perceptive than I, and some who have experienced you in person agree with my assessment. So, don't put it off on mean ol' Gene. People are not stupid and they know falsehood and progressivism when they see it.
The fact is, no one knows what you mean by many of your posts because you prevaricate and avoid answering direct questions like the one asked you by another blogger about whether you believed in the Real Presence and the bodily resurrection of Christ. You said that the question was some kind of trap. LOL! Now how could a question like that possibly be a "trap" for a Catholic Priest or any Catholic. If he can't or won't answer it, it can only mean one thing.
I am very interested in what others on this blog post, as anyone who reads my posts should be able to tell from my responses to them. I am not in a "position to know all" as you taunt, only to know falsehood and dishonesty when I read it.
ytc,
I am in total agreement with your comment at 11:19--I was just curious about the status of those items. Personally, I think a nice pair of conservative black lace-up dress shoes with all leather soles is just fine for any cleric (or layman for that matter).
Pin/Gene - You will continue to read into what I post, making up my meanings for me. You can't deal with what I say directly, because you can't find any evidence of apostasy, heresy, or schism in it. Since I am not an apostate, a heretic, or a schismatic, and since you won't find that in my posts, preaching, or writing, you have to make it up out of your own fantasy and fear.
I never said the question about the Real Presence was a trap. I said that I was not subject to your inquisitorial examinations. I serve at the bishop's pleasure, not yours. (And since you think so little of bishops, that carries no weight with you. Again, that's your problem, not mine.)
And regardless of how I answer your questions, you will read into them what you want, so why should I bother?
The ONLY meaning you can legitimately take away from my refusal to submit to your oversight is that . . . I will not submit to your oversight.
Beyond that, whatever you assume from my refusal to answer is entirely your thought, not mine.
And I'm still wondering how gloves remind us of God's majesty and sovereignty.
"And I'm still wondering how gloves remind us of God's majesty and sovereignty."
How does anything remind us of God's majesty and sovereignty?
Once again, deceiver, you are being dishonest. It was never me who asked you if you believed in the Real Presence and the bodily resurrection. It was another blogger and, I believe, he asked you twice. So, you cannot use the dodge that it was my being "inquisitorial" that kept you from answering. No, it was yet another blogger who finds you to be prevaricating, double-speaking, and dishonest. That camp seems to be growing, so can it really be that the problem is all with our perception?
OH, and Ignotus, I would desire no oversight over you at all. That is your fantasy...however, had I oversight over you I would have fired you long ago. LOL!
Post a Comment