Prior to the Council, one way to hide the tabernacle during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was to veil it and also have a veil inside the tabernacle when the tabernacle was opened and to boot, even the cyborii were veiled in the tabernacle. And during the Mass, the large center altar card hid the tabernacle even further.
Ad orientem does not mean praying toward the Most Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle, it means praying toward the East, toward the geographical Jerusalem, a symbol of the New Jerusalem from which we await the Second Coming of Christ. Of course it can be the physical or symbolic east during Mass.
Even in the Pontifical TLM, the tabernacle is to be empty when a bishop celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Indeed the Blessed Sacrament was placed in another tabernacle on an altar near the main altar and the tabernacle on the main altar was empty.
But what in the Name of God and all that is Holy makes a TLM liturgist think it is a good idea to have Solemn Exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament whilst the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is in progress? At the elevations, which Host are we to adore, the One that is a part of the Active Unbloody Sacrifice just consecrated or the Other in the monstrance. This is an aberration that if it was done prior to the Council, rightfully should have been corrected with or without a Council!
IT MAKES NO LITURGICAL SENSE EVEN IN THE TLM!
14 comments:
I am unsure what is going on in the photo, but it isn't a mass at that time, but some manner of consecration of some variety, and all I see wrong in the photo is someone front and center with a distracting to them, and everyone else, cell phone playing junior news hound, where all that might be missing is, "Father, you're blocking the light, could you move a little left." Folk running around with cameras have no business in any religious ceremony, anywhere, anytime, as it just turns it into a show and them wrecking true worship for the always minority actually attempting that worship....you want it documented, then be there and have it printed on the mind.
I suppose I just don't know much about "Missae coram sanctissimo." I wouldn't be surprised if it has its roots in medieval Eucharistic piety. It does strike me as odd, as does preaching during Exposition, but the former was at one time permitted (and still is, in the older books) and the latter is currently permitted. So, I'd be willing to learn more as to why on both counts.
Nick
Bob it is the Solemn Sung Mass in the Traditional form and the manner in which the Gospel is chanted. The question or aberration is that the Most Blessed Sacrament is Solemnly Exposed throughout the Mass. It is clearly an aberration, even when done in pre-Vatican II times, although I am sure there was justification for it. It shouldn’t be happening with the modern celebration of the TLM most solemn form that an ordinary priest, deacon and subdeacon can celebrate.
I will need take your word for it that it is a mass...the priest down at floor level amidst a crowd including parishoners with cell phones does not match any solemn sung mass I have ever attended, more as some blessing or consecration ongoing during an exposition of the blessed sacrament, at which I have also seen multiple priest with incense and candles.
If 40 hours, aren't there rules that permit?
If possible, the luna should be veiled, or there was a....forget what it was called....like a banner type thing that would have been placed before the monstrance to be removed at the conclusion of mass.
Honestly, I feel the Roman Church is too focused on what is where and have created their own liturgical and physical environmental chaos as a result. We don't have such concerns, the tabernacle is on the holy table, without fail. The tabernacle, except for Great and Holy Friday and Saturday is empty while our Lord is in the tomb.
IMHO, the Roman Church should have maintained the integrity of the '62 missal and associated rubrics reforming the fussy parts of the various ceremonials only. We wouldn't likely be having this discussion if that had occurred.
Bob it is the highest form of the TLM that a regular priest can celebrate. It is in a church that wasn’t designed for the TLM so they have to make do. In the Solemn High Mass, the deacon assisted by the subdeacon reads the Gospel facing north and the priest celebrant at the altar faces where the Gospel is proclaimed. The celebrant is wearing the proper vestment for the TLM, the chasuble, the deacon is wearing the dalmatic and the subdeacon the tunic. All three are a matching set.
It is Mass in the Traditional Form in a church building that does not accommodate it well.
Like I said, I'd need take your word, Father McDonald, or pretty much any priest's, you guys far more familiar with what vestments for what, or what vestments never worn for such and such functions.....still pretty strange to me that it an actual mass but somebody standing right there recording on cell phone during the gospel, altar not set with cards, holders, etc, and how could a mass be celebrated with the monstrance sitting right in the middle of the smallish altar?
I have trouble with a lot of what I can see, lacking resolution, and can only guess the actual tabernacle in corner left...the monstrance is sitting on SOMEthing on the altar taking up much space...those MIGHT be the prayer cards propped against on whatever the monstrance rests? Where is everything else normally seen on an altar for mass? Candles down at floor SHOULD indicate gospel being read, but unsure an actual mass as so much else is "off", there are a lot of things done in traditional Latin rites which I have never witnessed, only personally have seen masses and one wedding and one funeral and zilch else, so I just hate to bash stuff when personally not sure of even what is going on.
As for going full boogie on a monstrance on altar during mass, well, it certainly would cause no confusion as to the Faith to me, nor distract from what I am there to do, so, I just can't get into an uproar over such a thing, as it one of those things I never would have been in an uproar about without being told I needed to be in an uproar, and me unsure if it might actually be permissible for certain occasions...just purely something to give MCs tizzies and fits of vapours.
This link will address your questions as to what's going on: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/11/40-hours-mass-of-deposition-assumption.html
THANKS, MARC!!! I figured if they were trying something novel, there would have been balloons, clowns, and dancers in tights involved...maybe a shaman.
I still don't think there are enough candles...
Fr. MJK,
Youvare correct. Custom was to always have 40 candles lit during 40 hours. Consecration candles can/should also be lit, but do not contribute to the 40.
During my Roman days, it was a fun challenge to reach the 40. Then, our parish was willed massive candelabra handily solving the problem.
I'm wrong...haven't thought about this in years, you can use consecration candles to reach 40. Looks glorious when all are illuminated.
Respectfully, Father, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The rubrics of the older form explicitly allow, in the context of 40-hours devotion, to have Our Lord exposed in a monstrance during the mass that concludes the 40-hours devotion. During that time, whenever the priest turns to the people to say "Dominus Vobiscum," the priest must do a sort of side-step so that his back is not directly turned towards Our Lord exposed in the monstrance.
This doesn't mean it is always a good idea, or that it should be done on a regular basis. But to address this in a mocking attitude like you have done, without in any way first trying to research the matter, is grossly inappropriate.
Frankly, I find it very troubling how flippant you can sometimes be about older liturgical traditions that you do not understand. Your earlier post mocking the old photos of the Mass in the Presence of the Pope in the Sistine Chapel, where lesser prelates are sitting on the throne steps, is a good example. Your dismissal of this as "comfortably solemnity" is incredibly shallow and beneath your dignity as a priest. This is an ancient tradition demonstrating the hierarchical nature of the Church. Whether you like it or not, we have a hierarchy, and a monarchial episcopate. Even to this day the Bishop's chair is a throne, and it makes sense (although not, of course, necessary) to have lesser prelates sitting on the steps leading up to the throne as a demonstration of a that hierarchy. And I guarantee you that, in the pre-air conditioned days, sitting on hard steps in full clerical dress for the long ceremony of a Mass in the Presence of the Pope would be anything but "comfortably solemnity." The laity who attend mass in this country in air conditioned churches with padded pews and padded kneelers have it far more comfortable than anyone in that picture, including the Pope himself.
To be clear--while I sometimes attend the older form of the mass, I actually prefer the 1970 missal so long as it is done reverently. I despise the word "traditionalist" and it pains me to see how much of Benedict XVI's "reform of the reform" has been discarded by so many factions in the Church. But it is completely beneath you and your dignity as a priest to be so dismissive and mocking of something relating to the Eucharist that you clearly have not researched.
Post a Comment