How we handle our Lord under the form of bread and wine has suffered as well especially in the lack of proper protocol all meant to uphold the dignity of our Sacramental system and the Signs which convey our Lord's divine presence in a visible way.
It was brought to my vivid attention that in some places, even when priests are gathered for Solemn Exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament, that the actual "exposition" is carried out in a less than beautiful way, very perfunctory and uninspiring of no visible devotion and reverence.
For example a priest or deacon will "expose" the blessed sacrament not wearing choir dress or even an alb or stole, but simply a clerical shirt, pants but no coat. Reposition is the same way.
If I saw that, and I won't say I have or haven't, I think I would be offended by the casualness and lack of visible reverence in attire no matter how reverent the deacon or priest actually is. Sacramentals are by nature visible not invisible.
4 comments:
"One of the great horrors of the "spirit" of Vatican II is the loss of Catholic formality, sense of visible reverence and proper liturgical attire, such as choir dress for priests which is almost completely absent today."
Once again Vatican Two, or the "Spirit" thereof, gets blamed for something it did not cause and probably did not influence.
Before Vatican Two, people "dressed up" to go to baseball games - jackets and ties for men, dresses and ties for women.
Before Vatican Two, people "dressed up" to go shopping. Women wore gloves, men wore hats.
Before Vatican Two, lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court wore formal morning clothes.
I'd like to know how these changes in CULTURE are caused by Vat 2...
There remains protocol for how a cleric is to dress to Solemnly expose and repose the Most Blessed Sacrament. For a cleric to simply wear a casual clergy shirt and slacks says much about the spirit of Vatican II that has defrauded Catholic reverence.
Degraded not defrauded but that works too, thank you very much spell check!
I suspect one reason why people in the 1940s and 50s appear over-dressed by modern standards is that before the advent of cheap casual clothing most people did not have a vast wardrobe. In Britain clothing was still rationed six years after the war.
However, liturgical dress is ceremonial. It is not immune to the vagaries of fashion, but doesn't 'date' in the same way. Ceremonial military dress has changed little since late Victorian times; in the UK judges and barristers wear wigs and gowns; even in the USA one sees formal academic dress, most men own a dinner jacket (tuxedo) and morning dress is still seen at weddings.
Anonymous, as usual, is off the point.
Post a Comment