I was puzzled why the anointing of King Charles III took place behind an “iconostasis” of sorts and here is a great explanation which our current papal magisterium should read:
From Fr. Joseph Selinger, OP:
“I would like to call attention to the fact that King Charles’s anointing occurred behind screens. The ancient coronation liturgy adheres to the principle that what is most sacred is veiled. Notice also that ad orientem worship and the silent canon in the Catholic Mass also observed this principle.
We like to think that what is most sacred should be visible and that its visibility will allow people to better apprehend the sacred action.
Phenomenologically, the situation is exactly the opposite. The sacred is most *hidden* in its sacrality when it is most *visible*, while it is most *visible* in its sacrality when it is most *hidden*. Worse, this insight was being rediscovered by secular continental philosophy at the same time as versus populum worship and the loud praying of the canon were being advocated by Catholic liturgists. It is often a disfunction of the Catholic intellectual tradition that we get into trends centuries too late, after they have already become passé. Those who finally adopted these outdated trends then see themselves as sophisticated and progressive, when in fact profoundly regressive and should have spent more time reading contemporary literature than 17th century literature.
Somewhere along the line the Cartesian ideal of clear and distinct perception came to prominence—a certain “mathematical prejudice” (to use a Heideggerian turn of phrase)—which put an emphasis on the intelligibility of what is present to our gaze. Unfortunately, such attitudes influenced the academics who planned liturgical reforms. They would have been better off to learn the phenomenological insights contained in the liturgy itself instead of thinking themselves its teacher.”
My astute commentary:
When I first saw this, I thought maybe this was a porti-pot moment for the king and his “throne” as we call it on this side of the pond, had a trap door for emergencies that can’t wait. But then I was told it was for the anointing.
The explanation above by Fr. Joseph, OP, is a good explanation, but then by the same logic, the reception of Holy Communion either by the priest or the laity should be screened off as it is more intimate than the anointing of a king.
I can remember the first time in my home parish around 1966 or maybe late 1965, when the priest celebrated the 1965 Mass facing the nave for the very first time, that my family, including me, were shocked to watch the priest receive his Holy Communion facing us. Etiquette back in the day, said you should not eat in front of people if they aren’t eating. The other shock was to watch the priest chew the Host which was forbidden to us lowly laity at the time and considered a mortal sin of intentional desecration of the Host!
But, more importantly, intimate moments between those who love each other, should not be displayed in an exhibitionist sort of way, they should be kept private.
Thus ad orientem, especially for the reception of Holy Communion by both the laity and clergy, is important and heightens the sacredness of the moment without grotesque issues of etiquette or casualness in the reception of the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar.
Pope Francis often comes across as a person “of this” but not “of that.” His Holiness, in many cases, has abandoned the ethos of Catholicism which in good things isn’t either/or, but, both/and. Pope Benedict’s very Catholic both/and in permitting the ancient form of the Mass and its sacraments is a brilliant example of the both/and of Catholicism and model to be upheld while condemning the either/or of so many, both on the left and the right, which is comes to the TLM and MVM!
For example, His Holiness and the USA papal nuncio excoriates lay Catholics who are too private in their participation at Mass and receiving Holy Communion to the point of saying private piety during Mass is wrong as it contradicts communal participation. What a sad mentality. Both the private and communal are needed and neither independently are wrong but both are better!
Fortunately, the erroneous translation into English of the liturgical Creeds of the Church, once said, “We believe”. But do we believe. What is important is that “I believe” as I communally say or chant the Creed during Mass, which is a communal chanting or saying, thus both aspects are present, private and communal.
4 comments:
This veiling has been part of the coronation rite for some time. This "ordination" of sorts is viewed as being too sacred to be viewed by those in attendance other than those administering the "sacrament" and its recipient. As the sovereign is to be anointed on his/her breast, I suspect the veiling, in part, preserves their dignity as in the case of Charles, the nature of his innermost garment would have required him to partially disrobe to provide access.
Note: Anglicans accept 2 of the 7 sacraments, baptism and eucharist however, the others are viewed as "important religious rites". https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anglican-Communion
To me, the veiling of the "ordination" is slightly inverted relative to the apostolic churches that are familiar to me. There, ordination is not hidden. In the Byzantine Churches (all) as well as Roman papal burial rites, upon death, the end of earthy ministry, the aer, the large veil covering the chalice and diskos, is placed over the face of the deceased priest or bishop symbolizing that all has now been revealed - he sees into the kingdom of heaven and is hopefully sharing in its splendor.
Back to the Anglicans. This pick and choose in a church where their new leader has sworn to uphold and practice "protestant" principles and rites is, to me, a dichotomy. In other words, they eschewed reality for symbolism, removed ceremony yet kept much. To me, they are difficult to understand.
Father McDonald said..."Pope Benedict’s very Catholic both/and in permitting the ancient form of the Mass and its sacraments is a brilliant example of the both/and of Catholicism and model to be upheld while condemning the either/or of so many, both on the left and the right, which is comes to the TLM and MVM!'
For more than eight years, Pope Francis had maintained Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical peace plan. Pope Francis had done so despite the plan's obvious failure.
The failure of Pope Saint John Paul II's liturgical peace plan had led to holy Pope Benedict XVI's gallant, but failed attempt, to secure the peaceful coexistence of the TLM, as well as Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
A great many bishops, who had rejected Summorum Pontificum, helped to ensure said document's demise. They were/are "reformed Mass-only" bishops. Said bishops, in line with many additional Catholics, had viewed Summorum Pontificum as a destructive, monumental mistake.
On their collective part, many "traditional" Catholics viewed as unacceptable, as well as horrific, Pope Benedict XVI's attempt to secure liturgical peace between the supposed "True Mass" (TLM), and the supposed "Protestant, Jewish, Masonic" Holy Mass of Pope Paul VI.
Example: Last month during a lecture in South Carolina, Peter Kwasniewski renewed his attack upon Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical peace plan.
Mister Kwaniewski stated Pope Benedict XVI's two forms of the one Roman Rite "fiction" "was destined to fail as knowledge of, and devotion to, the traditional liturgy increased."
In 2021 A.D., Peter Kwasniewski had insisted that Summorum Potificum, a supposed muddled document, had been destined to collapse. He said:
"Thus, we can see that Summorum Pontificum contains profound tensions within itself, inasmuch as it reflects and reinforces certain false principles of ecclesiology and liturgy that led to the very crisis to which it was a partial response.
"In fact, it would not be too much to say that there are fictions, even lies, in the document."
"This, then, is the fundamental problem with Summorum Pontificum: it is internally incoherent, founded on a monumental contradiction caused by the worst abuse of papal power in the history of the Church.
"The motu proprio reflects and reinforces false principles of ecclesiology and liturgy that led to the very crisis to which it was a partial response.
"After its Prologue and Article 1, the remainder of Summorum Pontificum subtly holds the traditional liturgy hostage, or gives it, as it were, second-class citizenship."
"Summorum Pontificum is destined to be one of the great papal interventions in all of history, but it is no more than damage control; it is not a pillar, much less a foundation, of a permanent structure.
"And those who lean on it too much will find themselves crushed by its incoherences."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
For eight years, Pope Francis had displayed tremendous tolerance to the TLM Movement, which, in turn, had rejected one teaching after another related to Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical peace plan.
One "traditionalist" after another, in defiance of Pope Benedict XVI, had continued to badmouth the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. Said folks insisted that the Holy Mass was "Protestant, Jewish, Masonic"...must be destroyed...then replaced with the supposed "True Mass" (TLM).
From there, said folks also trashed Vatican II, our Vatican II Era Popes...
Said folks had refused holy Pope Benedict XVI's gallant attempt to have established the peaceful coexistence of the TLM, and Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
For one "traditionalist" after another, it was the TLM-only. Said folks in, defiance of Summorum Pontificum, that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI must be destroyed.
After eight years of the above nonsense, that had expanded during his Pontificate, Pope Francis had been called to respond to the destruction in question.
Archbishop Di Noia summed up the above situation:
Pope Francis "fearlessly hits the nail on the head: the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) movement has hijacked the initiatives of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to its own ends."
As had been noted via 2021 A.D. news reports, Archbishop Di Noia "had served as secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, was deeply involved in the Vatican's dialogue with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X and currently is adjunct secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
Archbishop Di Noia continued:
"...what we have got now is a movement within the church herself, seemingly endorsed by her leaders, that sows division by undermining the reforms of the Second Vatican Council through the rejection of the most important of them: the reform of the Roman Rite."
"...the thing has gotten totally out of control and become a movement, especially in the U.S., France and England — a movement that aggressively promotes the Traditional Latin Mass among young people and others as if this 'extraordinary form' were the true liturgy for the true church."
"...the evident and ongoing betrayal of the intentions of the two pontiffs who permitted the celebration of the 1962 Missal to draw traditionalists back into the unity of the church. What the Holy Father is saying is that the TLM movement is working for objectives that are precisely contrary to what St. John Paul and Benedict XVI hoped for."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I thought it was an exaggeration to claim that "traditionalists" are at war with Vatican II?
New Catholic (Rorate Caeli) today via twitter:
"Vatican II was an utter and complete disaster, and the more "implemented" its letter was, the more catastrophic were the results. We need to forget about it and move on."
Pope Benedict XVI:
Vatican II "proved to be not only meaningful, but necessary."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment