No news here.
Most Catholics that I meet don't know any of this. If I mention it, most act like I don't know what I am talking about.
Regarding the "Closed Circle" argument, all circles are, by definition, closed. An unclosed circle is, again by definition, an arc, not a circle.To complain that a circle is "closed" is the same as complaining that a square has four sides or that a cube has six sides. The "Closed Circle" argument suggests that God, because the circle is "closed," is necessarily excluded. This is a false argument. With Christ as the center of the circle, God is very much present. The offering of the Son to the Father is effected from the "circular" arrangement of the NO mass as well as from the linear arrangement of the EF mass.In both cases the offering is made to the Father.While he mentions creating a sense of intimacy, allowing eye contact between priests and people, and allowing people to see what the priest is doing, Dr. Shaw fails to mention anything about the substantial changes in the Church's ecclesiology that underpin the Versus Populum orientation of the NO. Jesus is not found "on the Cross" any more than He is "in Jerusalem" or "coming from Jerusalem" at the end of time. Nor is facing Jesus in a central tabernacle s strong argument for Ad Orientem mass. Only since the 16th century - late in the history of the Church - has there been a requirement that the tabernacle be centrally located on the altar of sacrifice. What were we "facing" for the 1400 years before that?http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_9045_l3.htm?id=9045
He is spot on when he said, among other things, that the position of the priest when ad orientem UNITES him with the people.This also UNITES the people with each other.All in a shared sense of purpose.Doubt it?Check it out for yourself.Sheila
My deacon just pointed out to me that my church is pictured in the video! Somehow I missed it!
Post a Comment