When I looked at this photo of the new Tapestry of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles' Cathedral, I was struck by something else. Do you see it?
It is all the chairs in the sanctuary which are for the diocesan presbyterate or other bishops who might concelebrate with their Archbishop an ordination or Chrism Mass or some other large diocesan event.
Of course the configuration is for the concelebrants to be facing the peons in the pew, facing them directly on as though on a performing stage.
And it is clear that they are completely different than the laity in the nave of the Cathedral. But the theology behind having the bishop's priests around him is to emphasize clericalism in a liturgical way. Perhaps is hearkens back to an earlier age of building cathedrals, wisely dropped in an organic way over the course of centuries.
Now look at this Cathedral at a large Bishop's Mass from prior to Vatican II:
Apart from the artwork above the altar being far superior to the new one in Los Angeles' Cathedral, I see priests in choir dress, cassock and surplice sitting in the congregation with the laity. And they participate in the Mass in the same way as the laity do, standing, sitting and kneeling as the laity. And when it is time for Holy Communion, the priests, just like the laity, go to the Communion Railing and kneel to receive Holy Communion (and just the Host) and on the tongue, just like the laity do.
They aren't up there with their Bishop who is the celebrant and placed around the altar to concelebrate as though the male version of the Rockets. They don't receive Holy Communion first and consume together to Sacred Host and then go to the chalice.
It isn't as clerical or pretentious is it as what might happen in most new cathedrals or ones wreckovated?
20 comments:
Of COURSE the old way is better. Of COURSE it makes more sense.
Why do you think so many people don't want to characterize our past as "backward", "pre-conciliar" or "outdated"? If you can demonize an idea before actually understanding it, no one will dare to debate it.
The liturgical movement, through the Sanctosasanctum Concilium which it was involved with in formulating, demanded concelebration because it was dead set against this still done today at Fontgombault every morning:
https://www.lux-lumen.com/sites/default/files/2019-04/LuxLumen_Fontgombault_Warm_064_2700x1800.jpg
I ask, which is more holy, more spiritually meritorious to the priests, the private Masses like above, or, like at some Benedictine Novus Ordo monasteries which I can name, concelebrations every morning with their Nazi like salutes by the concelebrants doing their show behind the altar during the consecration?
These wanton, transgressive liturgical initiatives will eventually add up to full scale schism. Will come sooner than later unless there is a pause or a miracle: a return to liturgical sanity. 5 to 10 years and it will happen.
I don't know how that "don't" got in my comment. I didn't mean to use it.
The fact that these men build these monuments to a Church in marked decline is very telling about them. I am not a medically trained person but this almost borders on narcissism.
On the rare occasion that diocesan clergy are gathered (thinking the Chrism Mass), all can smile and nod at each other thinking how vibrant things are. Deluded. For most of the rest of the year, empty rows of chairs will be looking back at increasingly empty pews/chairs (however the people are seated in this particular monument). "Concelebration" gone wild. Of course, with no concelebration pre-VII, there was no need for clergy in attendance to be packed into the sanctuary until they needed to be there.
The tapestry is not great but, it is not awful either. This building is not of a style that I care for; and I'm glad it is on the other side of the country from me. I gather its conception and execution was driven by ego, not necessarily the Church's tradition, a nod to local style or, what the people had and would have wanted in a new cathedral. No continuity. But, it's there. It cost a considerable sum to be there, and as a result, there it will stay. Perhaps a future occupant of that particular throne will see fit to reorder the sanctuary. I'm not sure what else could practically be done without a significant outlay of funds.
In reading your post and viewing the banner photo of your blog, I think the thing I miss most about the old Mass is the direction and dignity of the old altar. One often thinks people associate the TLM with grandiose churches and ornate vestments. Sometimes they are there, but a quiet dignity always seems to be present.
Can the train get to Heaven without altar rails?
Anonymous K at 5:43,
Nothing to offer, per usual.
Interesting - the blog owner now refuses to post comments that correct his obvious errors of fact.
Let's try this again - The "Rockets" you refer to are the Rockettes of Radio City. They are not the Saturbn V or the Falcon Nine rockets.
Howe many tymes due ay have to wrote that I am liberated from righting praper spelyn and grahamer as I am a madern persyn hoo prephers hys oun thrut.
And i can’t afford an editor and i don’t like editing.
Anonymous K at 10:12 AM,
John Nolan has corrected your grammar and "facts" numerous times
I do not make a point of correcting contributors' spelling and grammar for the sake of it. I do make an exception for those who are quick to attribute faults to others but are far from faultless themselves. Motes and beams.
I will gladly accept the chastisement of others concerning misspelling, grammar mistakes and sentence construction. I am a bit glib about it because I have never been a good editor of my own mistakes. I type fast and because of spell check don't check what spell check does not highlight on my blog platform. And I am a busy person, typing between doing other things or things that distract me as I am typing.
But with that said, my meme about my truth in spelling and grammar is a strike at the absurdity of this new ideology in our worldwide culture. We should chastise and correct those whose own version of truths about spelling and more importantly gender ideology and a whole host of other absurdities connected with one's own "personal" truth as though there are no universal truths whatsoever.
The suggestion that comments - it's not a "meme" by the way - that those who note the voluminous errors in your spelling, grammar, and syntax indicates that those who make them consider them more important than other, weightier matters is silly.
As for your spell checker issues, if you type your texts in a word processing program, you will have the benefit of the automatic chastisement that is offered free of charge. Once that is done, it is two clicks, one called "Copy" and the other called "Paste" to transfer what you have written to your blog.
Your hired!
A minor thing, but when I saw the tapestry behind the altar it reminded me of a pet peeve of mine. We are given the names of only three angels in the Bible: Michael, Raphael and Gabriel. All "masculine" names, but in the majority of cases, artists seem to like making images of angels quite feminine like in that tapestry. I never thought about it until a friend of mine told me she wanted to get a "guardian angel" print for her boys' room and wanted the angel(s) to look masculine but could find none anywhere. Other than images of St. Michael, I think she's right.
'The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, accompanied by fairies'.
Post a Comment