This is a still photo of the Requiem Mass video for Officer Talley. It was celebrated at the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Denver. This photo captures the so-called “pre-Vatican II Mass” celebrated in a Cathedral designed according to pre-Vatican II norms for the high theology of this Mass:
The altar is at the highest apex of the sanctuary. The Archbishop’s throne is three steps lower as is the chair for the priest/deacon/subdeacon. The pulpit is at an even lower point. That’s the hierarchy of design for pre-Vatican II cathedrals/ churches/ and chapels to accommodate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Immediately, one knows by what one sees that the altar is the most important piece of furnishings in a church according to this design.
I wonder what the non-Catholic mourners thought of the post Vatican II free-standing altar placed in the lowest and contrived location here? It looks so out of place and superfluous. The bishop’s and priest’s throne/chair are higher than it. And compared to the original altar, it looks insignificant.
Could it be that Catholics got the message—what occurs on the new free-standing altar isn’t as important as what happened on the High Altar? I wonder what practicing Catholics in this cathedral who have never seen Mass celebrated at the High Altar in either form of the Mass were thinking?
The law of prayer is the law of belief.
15 comments:
The same theology applies to the EF and to the NO.
You may be confusing "high/low Christology" with what you term "high/low theology."
"High/Low Christology" often refers to the perspective one takes, whether one starts with Jesus as Divine (high) or Jesus as human (low).
Both are authentic approaches as Jesus was fully God and fully human.
It seems that the top of the pulpit (not the book stand) is even with the mensa of the high altar. That would make sense, right?
Yes, agree with your thoughts. Yesterday, it seemed that the best the Church had to offer was extended to this liturgy. Mourners were allowed to....mourn and pray for the repose of the soul of the deceased. It had verticality, a grand central focus, an appropriate formality/seriousness, no awkward gaps/stops for movements and no grinning celebrant staring at everyone from his chair and no singing "couple" waving their arms at the congregation.
The table altar is beautiful but, it is just so lost in that space.
A NO funeral, to me, almost seems self-serving with trite hymns and sometimes very awkward "words of remembrance" despite getting to a similar and valid end. The deceased needs our prayers, not our attempt at celebrating their lives. Again, and to me, it is misdirected emphasis.
I'm sure this was unfamiliar to many who watched. The homilist did a good job at explaining the 5 W's to those attending/attending virtually. Those who had never been exposed to such a liturgy were hopefully left feeling that it is taken very seriously and executed very carefully.
I'm guessing that most assisting at the altar are regularly part of EF celebrations at an FSSP parish. Their movements were mostly comfortable/natural looking leading me to conclude that it wasn't something that had just been learned for this particular liturgy. The diligence of the servers was impressive. Their prayerful dedication and commitment, given their age, really stood out. I have to wonder what the Bishop was thinking watching this...
One other thought.... The high altar: We were unified with the priest, it didn't matter one iota who, personally, was celebrating and I don't feel that I saw any less than if he were facing me. The elevations was likely more visible from the high altar. I say this from the perspective of preferring this orientation, one that I see weekly in the Byzantine Church.
Shame that it took such a tragedy to put this type of focus on good liturgy that is properly oriented, focused and ordered. If I were a relative, I would have found the experience to be rock solid (and, therefore, reliably comforting) and would have felt reassured that I would be able to continue on.
Yes, the freestanding altar should be removed. It would make the sanctuary look much better.
I agree Father 100 %
Father McDonald,
Gallup just put out some very disturbing statistics showing a precipitous drop in Catholics between 2018-2020 (FRANCIS EFFECT: LOL).
I imagine you will want to study this:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx
frmjk, yes I should have used low Christology and high Christology. But the point I made is the same. You can’t divide Jesus. He is God. Thus you can’t say, let’s identify with Mary’s son today and have a low Christology Mass and say, let’s identify with God the Father today and have a high Christology Mass.
The low and high Christology theological concept leads to Hersey that was cleared up in Nicaea. Thus, on second thought, high theology and low theology such as in high church and low church is more apt.
No, Jesus cannot be divided. That idea's be tried and found wanting...
Low and High Christology exist in parallel, an arrangement made necessary by the unique status of Jesus as Truly God and Truly Human, of one substance with the Father.
In terms of liturgy, there is one theology of sacrifice and atonement/propitiation that is expressed in either the EF or the NO.
Maybe the same theology applies to the EF and the OF but the effects on people are quite different. Surveys show an overwhelming number of EF attendees have a strong belief in the Real Presence (Transubstantiation) whereas OF attendees do not. Sounds like the OF should be retired for product failure
The dogma surrounding it is the same, but not the theology of celebration is not or there would not have been the desecration of the churches by ripping out altars, artwork and going into the round.
The point, though, from the uninformed eye seeing the two different forms of the Mass, which seems more "lofty, reverent, high" and which doesn't. Would they even believe they represent the same dogma?
Pierre,
It would be impossible today to suppress the OF Mass and it should not be. However, it should be reformed to "resemble" the EF Mass in style and reverence. Again, as I have said, over and over, the template for this is the Ordinariate's Divine Worship, the Missal.
Apart of the EF options this new missal allows, the three greatest acts of reform would be ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion as well as chants that resemble Gregorian Chant and not kitsch. Of those three, kneeling for Holy Communion is the most important reform to implement.
I would suggest a third reform and that is returning to the pre-Vatican II rules for sanctuaries and how the altar is position to include some form of a corona.
If you want the OF Mass to 'resemble' the EF in style and reverence, simply use the options provided for the rite. The Mass I attend most Sundays is OF but has the following features:
1. Apart from the Scripture readings, it's in Latin.
2. It's sung, with the full Gregorian Propers, as per the 1974 Graduale.
3. It's celebrated 'ad orientem'.
4. The celebrant is assisted by deacon and subdeacon.
5. The Roman Canon is invariably used.
6. Communion is received kneeling at the rail. The Chalice is not offered. Most choose to receive on the tongue.
7. Mass is preceded by the old Asperges rite.
Because of COVID the 'Prayer of the Faithful' and the congregational 'sign of peace' have been discontinued on the instructions of the bishops. I suspect they are not missed.
All the above are permitted in the Novus Ordo, and don't require any 'reform', mandated or otherwise.
Well, all I can say is that we know this was not the Requiem liturgy called for by Vatican Ii.
Father McDonald,
The ultimate decision will not be made by you or me but by the young faithful. It appears to me that younger Catholics who still bother to come to Mass are increasingly drawn to the EF, not the OF.
If you want it resemble the EF, I can only conclude that the EF, de facto, is superior to the OF because of the earlier point I keep making which you have not addressed. After almost 60 years, the OF does not appear not to be the proper vehicle for conveying the most central part of our Catholic belief: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is not some small detail like your "confrere" would have us believe. If belief in the Real Presence is declining among the OF crowd, then we need to seriously consider whether it should be preserved.
I am disappointed that Father McDonald and his confrere have not dealt with my point that the OF is a defective means of fostering faith in the Real Presence (transubstantiation) but I don’t have to worry about retribution from a bishop who doesn’t get it. Sigh!
Post a Comment