Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Congratulations to Msgr Marini and to the Holy Father for appoiting him. Is the assistant MC new as well. I don't recall seeing him before?
I don't remember seeing the new assistant MC either.
Isn't it great how observant we all are when it comes to the liturgy....and what we know is essential in Catholic Mass, like how the altar looks today.
I am very impressed. I never thought the altar in St. Peter's would look totally Catholic again when in use by the Pope! It's magnificent.
I can never remember where (because on my spare time I read thru dozens of Catholic blogs), but I read that all these little signs are "flags" so to speak of a big re-orientation of the Catholic Mass to be issued by Benedict XVI.
I read that He is not content with just a new allowance for the Tridentine Latin Mass, but rather is pushing for full and open freedom for it. Likewise, he is not at all pleased with the current expression of the Novus Ordo as celebrated in the Vatican, or in the everyday parish. So a re-orientation of the Catholic Mass is being worked out...and these visible hints like the Consistory, and the Ring Mass are signs or "flags" as to the direction future Papal rulings will take.
Three things I read about of which the Pope is particularly displeased in the Novus Ordo Mass are:
1). Mediocre or worse music that is passed off as Sacred Music. The Pope is against contemporary Christian music, and contemporary musical instruments (guitars, drums, trombones) at Mass. (Oh well, that leaves my parish out...that's all they use!! : )
2)Liturgical Dancing and other abberations at Mass (perhaps that means altar girls?) (Hooray !!!) Archbishop Ranjith came out against "Liturgical Dance" last week. I hope He succeedes Arinze....who did practically nothing while in office.
3). Excessive "inculturation" to the point where the Catholic Mass becomes unrecognizable as such. John Paul II on the other hand went in for all this very much, and was a big fan of all of this above.
Hopefully these directives (can you imagine the reaction of the rad liberal liturgists! Everyone thought their reaction to the Motu Proprio was bad....you haven't seen anything yet) will be coming soon.
I hope the Lord blesses Pope Benedict XVI with health and vigour, and the years in office needed to lay a strong foundation of a Catholic restoration which can't be undermined bby anyone...least of all a successor.
As a second comment about a new Assistant Papal MC, maybe a new man on stage is because some of the "old ones" who were totally devoted to their hero , Piero Marini and his liberal Bugninist agenda asked to resign their posts in the Ceremonies Dept. I saw two of the Piero Marini-men (one was Msgr. Mullay, an American), relegated to standing in the shadows, acting as an usher.
I think most of the liberal old guard are hovering around the same age as Piero (66). It's time for new traditionalist men like Msgr. Guido (42) to take charge ...and maybe with a new crew too.
I don't know the name of the assistant MC, but he's been working as MC in St Peter's for years.
PAX
wonderful again, sigh, all i have to offer are these poor pics..
http://thumbsnap.com/v/8jDFghrd.jpg
-
http://thumbsnap.com/v/sb5JD0wJ.jpg-
and thisVideo form yesterdays ceremony
-
http://www.lovetobecatholic.com/
...ory_Nov.25.html
The Cardinal Deacons were Card. Castrillón Hoyos and Card. Stafford.
Why are there just six candles on the altar? Shouldn't there be seven? (GIRM 117)
I've seen the MC before in Papal liturgies (and I think some non-Papal ones).
Did anyone catch the Pope's gestural mistake in the beginning of the Canon?
And why were the non-concelebrating cardinals praying the Our Father in the orans position?
My understanding with regard to the Big Six, as opposed to the 7th candle used for when the local ordinary is celebrant is that the 7th candle rule applies for every Bishop except the Bishop of Rome. That's always been the case.
Also did anyone note that Exulatate Deo was sung to a setting by Palestrina?? Yay.
Although Msgr Marini has done well so far, there is definitely scope for improvement. I don't think the liturgy was run terribly well to be honest. There were a lot of pauses where it seemed as if people weren't sure what to do. Notice the conundrum around the Throne after the Gospel, and the long pause while waiting for the Cardinals to move up to receive the ring. Similarly the pause in the Roman Canon when it wasn't clear who was meant to take over from the Pope until he gave a quick look to one of the new Cardinals. Surely the MC should be responsible for sorting all these stuff out. Here's hoping that all that will be ironed out come Christmas.
One thing I did notice though was how insconspicous he was throughout both liturgies. That was simply awesome and the true hallmark of a great MC.
It's a splendid start! The altar at St. Peter's hasn't looked that great in years. As a matter of fact, the candlesticks and cross remind me of those used during the reign of Pius XII. Thank God for Pope Benedict. Tom
Was it my imagination or did even the infamous St.Peter's choir sound much BETTER than usual??? But when will the Old Rite be celebrated by the Holy Father in St. Peters's?
Nini,
I did not, what was the mistake?
How beautiful the alter is, wow!!! I cant believe its novus ordo...lol
How can one apply this in ur average parish? ANd does anyone have other photos of the celebrations by the Holy Father?
He put extended his hands over the gifts during the Te igitur prior to the sign of the cross. He then extended his again again at the Quam Oblationem, correctly.
"How can one apply this in ur average parish? ANd does anyone have other photos of the celebrations by the Holy Father?
Jonathan (19) "
-
http://www.benediktxvi.ru/index....=1&
limitstart=0
-
http://www.benedictxvi.tv/
Some observations:
Hooray for the altar arrangement (now bring back the statuettes of Sts. Peter and Paul ;-) ) and the Cardinal Deacons (Someone said Pope John Paul also had them for canonisation Masses. Can anyone confirm this? Are there pictures?). Also for the pontifical dalmatic - we had seen it before, but I think now it's here to stay.
I agree with Justin that not everything went entirely smoothly, but that Msgr. was wonderfully unobtrusive. Also, it's such a breath of fresh air to see him always with hands joined and eyes either downcast or looking at the Eucharistic Lord.
Some things I noticed and I'm not sure whether they were done before. Were bells always rung for the hanc igitur? Did the former MC also kneel throughout the entore consecration? The Cardinal Deacons and the deacons also knelt on the lower steps of the altar. The angle wasn't shown much, but I think from apse it must have looked quite similar to the "good old times".
Now for the disappointments: 1) Penitential Act Form C (Kyrie litany). 2) Both lessons and even the responsorial psalm in the vernacular. 3) No elevation towards the cardinal points. Last time I brought this up, the consensus seemed to be that John Paul II dropped this when he became to infirm. Why hasn't Benedict resumed this venerable and so symbolic practice? It can't be that people at the Vatican have simply forgotten, can it? 4) The vestments. While o.k., they were nothing to write home about either, and the mitre was, for my taste, verging on the ugly (does anybody else have an aversion against these mitres that first become broader in a straight line, and then again narrower after a sharp edge?).
Berolinensis,
They rang the bell at the Quam oblationem. The extended hands take place at the Hanc igitur in the extraordinary form.
I think we should be cautious about rejoicing too quickly. The two developments people were praising yesterday (beautiful vestments and the return of the throne) were not present at this Mass. It looks like Benedict is just trying out new things at this point and not trying to set a precedent. The armchair and ugly vestments were back today, and apart from teh six candlesticks on the altar, there wasn't really anything "traditional" about this Mass from what I can tell.
Michael,
Did it ever occur to you that the reason the gold throne wasn't used today is because it's so heavy that it would be virtually impossible for them to move it out of the way in a smooth manner for the Liturgy of the Eucharist? That throne, by the way, was NEVER used in Papal Masses in the past. Ever.
I'm really astonished at how some people continue to whine and grumble about things, despite all the great developments.
Those vestments were not ugly. They looked quite ornate with very detailed embroidery in parts, it was hard to tell on TV though. They might not have been the most ornate vestments, but I cannot see how they can be called ugly.
Anonymous,
You're right. The vestments were quite nice, I thought. It looked like they were made of silk. The mitre looked quite nice as well.
It seems to me that some people think that anything other than Roman vestments and super-tall mitres studded with jewels smacks of modernism.
No matter what this Pope does, some people will never be satisfied. It's so sad to see people getting this critical about the Vicar of Christ.
I agree. This new MC is just starting out, and folks are expecting perfection already. Folks don't realize how complex these ceremonies can be, how much there is to keep track of. It's not just the MC who has to do everything right -- other folks have to remember their parts also.
The vestments are high-quality silk and are 1000% nicer than what is used in most parishes state-side today. Why complain so much about them? Is it not clear at this point that Pope Benedict is doing things s-l-o-w-l-y? Do you really think he's going to unpack the papal hope chest all at once? Please!
As for someone who complained about Penitential # 3 being used -- this is a legitimate option in the Novus Ordo. Why complain? Even if the Holy Father had used the Confiteor, would not so much of the rest of the Mass still be in so much discontinuity with the Old Rite? My point is, the 1962 and 2002 Missals are different and discontinuous enough as it is... does it really matter if the Holy Father chooses one legitimate option over another? Your complaint is arbitrary.
Watch, when the Holy Father does celebrate the Extraordinary Form, there will be the faithful group of folks who feel that they must comment on every item posted on this blog who chime in immediately and say "not good enough!" about any number of things.
Justin,
Of course the pope can make use of the 7th candle (at pontifical Mass of the living). Indeed, the whole seven candles business has its origin in the 7 candles carried by the acolytes and placed on the floor in front of the altar at a papal Mass, mentioned in the ancient Ordines Romani. Here is an example of 7 candles on the altar (but contrary to what the caption says, it is certainly not at the opening of the 2nd Vatican Council):
http://images.google.fr/imgres?i...%3DMKO%26sa%
3DN
I hope the seventh candle will appear one day in St. Peters! But I'm not complaining. After what I have seen over the past two days, I am waiting in joyful hope!
My thoughts.
First, the MC is but a few weeks into his term, let's give the fellow some slack. Overall, we must be pleased.
Second, things don't happen overnight, but they are happening quite quickly. The chasuble used may not be to everyone's preference, but it is a dignified vestment made of qualitative materials I think.
I have yet to hear the music, but if the music is now on a track for greater use of chant and polyphony, ancient vestments have already begun to make their appearance under the nuovo Marini (as some have started to call him), the altar cross and candles continue to be placed this way, then there is much to rejoice about.
The altar cross and candles are quite significant.
The comments have been charitable and excellent so far, for the most part. My small critique on two points. Our beloved pope has been in Rome too long, he incenses the altar like he's trying to leash his dog. That's how most Romans seem to do it though. Notice that the deacons accompanied him for the incensation!!! Wonderful. I hope they can get His Holiness to slow down, however.
One point that drives me absolutely batty is the laity reading the readings and the petitions. What it basically says is that the order of acolyte and reader mean absolutely nothing. I hope Marini II will change this. It is a very important point.
What it says is that Ministeria Quaedam was a complete failure. IT can't be lived practically, or there's no need for it at all. Which is it?
The new pallium, which I rather like, has a tremendous drawback in that it limits the type of vestments he can wear.
But...
Overall, splendid, splendid, splendid.
As for me, I liked the Pope's mitre alright. Anything which has prominent gold crosses adorning it can't be THAT bad. No, it wasn't perfect, but the emphasis on, at least, the cross, is better than we've had in the past.
The vestments were alright, too. The stolone of the chasuble was very nice on the Pontiff, and it seems the material of the rest of the chasuble was quite nice. Dalmatic's a good sign. Did anyone else catch the gold-laced ends on the arms of Benedict's alb? You could see it when he was sitting prior to going outside to greet the pilgrims, I think.
All very nice. I think we can realistically expect things to continue to improve greatly under Benedict, gloriously reigning!
The Pope is the only one who had (and may retake) the privilege of using the 7th candle *everywhere* - as opposed to the Ordinary of the place (who can do it only in the territory of his jurisdiction). So, the Pope could have used the seventh candle for this Mass. However, I think that it would be a very visible change as people are not used to seeing 6 candles much less 7.
Another point is that the candles seem to be placed in an ascending position as they get closer to the Cross on the Altar (although I can't be sure based on the pictures). This is a very traditional way of doing it and one very recommended in the old rubrics.
If anyone wants to, please explain what the 7th candle on the altar is for and why is it significant? I never heard of it before.
I was a little disappointed that the Pope used vestments that John Paul II wore. Time to let him go.
The vestments on Saturday and the mitre...and of course the throne were magnificent. Our Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper printed a big spread of the ceremony. The photo of Benedict XVI in cope and mitre sitting on the throne almost reminded me of the old photos I saw of Pius XII. That's a big improvement!
I know I've done my share of fault-finding/complaining on this site, but when you consider how great the new Papal MC is compared to the "F" for failure grade Piero Marini' Masses were, I think we should be applauding Msgr. Guido, and not looking for his faults or oversights.
I'll bet every Mass planned by the great Cardinal Enrico Dante didn't always go 100% either!
** As an aside, did anyone know that the late Cardinal Enrico Dante has his own honorific web-site? It's all in Italian, with photos of his life. Interestingly, part of it speaks of his love of sports, and his involvement in the 1940's and early 1950's in getting the Rome soccer team organized and licensed.
I am not sure whether some of these comments were directed partly at my comment. If so: please don't project something on me you may be annoyed by but which I didn't say. I started out by highlighting the tremendous positive aspects and did in no way detract from Shawn's headline of the post.
Regarding Msgr. Marini (Shawn: someone correct me, but I think "nuova Marini" is a malicious reference to his lace surplice, so we shouldn't use this) I did in no way attack him. To the contrary, I applauded his bearing. But even if I had pointed out some negative aspects, I cannot see why while acknowldging the tremendous progress that he is, at the same time one cannot mention some of the things which may still be perfected. No one supposed them to be perfect at the first opportunity, but why can they not even be mentioned? Just because one mentions some specific point that was not optimal doesn't mean that one is negative about the whole celebration. I thought I had made that sufficiently clear. We know there are people who always only see the negative, but I am certainly not among them and would ask not to be unjustly accused of "whining and grumbling".
ThomasMore1535, I think I've agreed with most of your comments so far, but if "It's so sad to see people getting this critical about the Vicar of Christ." is directed at me, I must reject that. With the same reasoning we ought not to have criticized any of the Piero Marini liturgies, any of Paul VI's choices, any part of the liturgical reforms - they are all papally approved. While preserving a profound respect and love towards the Holy Father and being obedient to his teaching and jurisdiction, it is certainly legitimate to voice opinions on such prudential matters. And really all I said was the vestment were o.k. but not great. You cannot in earnest take exception with that?
As for the vestments: Of course they are made of dignified material and far superior to what is used in most parishes state-side today - practically all the chasubles John Paul II used at St. Peter's were. We are talking about their style and design. And here of course taste enters. What I mainly dislike about these modern Vatican chasubles is that they are too light - they look they weigh nothing. This may be comfortable, but it doesn't, IMHO, look dignified. It is not about gothic vs. Roman vestments (although I would dearly love to see some of the Pius chasubles worn again) - look at the gothic vestments made by some of the producers linked to on the side bar - they are simply artistically superior.
Brian Crane:
"As for someone who complained about Penitential # 3 being used -- this is a legitimate option in the Novus Ordo. Why complain? Even if the Holy Father had used the Confiteor, would not so much of the rest of the Mass still be in so much discontinuity with the Old Rite? My point is, the 1962 and 2002 Missals are different and discontinuous enough as it is... does it really m
Cont'd:
Brian Crane:
"As for someone who complained about Penitential # 3 being used -- this is a legitimate option in the Novus Ordo. Why complain? Even if the Holy Father had used the Confiteor, would not so much of the rest of the Mass still be in so much discontinuity with the Old Rite? My point is, the 1962 and 2002 Missals are different and discontinuous enough as it is... does it really matter if the Holy Father chooses one legitimate option over another? Your complaint is arbitrary."
As that "someone", I completely disagree. This goes against the whole reform of the reform/ars celebrandi movement. You're basically advocating the hermeneutics of rupture. While I'm the last one to suggest the new Missal should stay as it is, as long as it is here, just like we advocate use of the Roman Canon (EP I), surely the Confiteor is the most traditional and hence preferable option.
Berolinensis,
Worry not, I personally didn't take you for doing such, but I did want to throw out a few ideas generally on the whole matter from my own perspective is all.
As for "nuova Marini", doesn't this simply mean the "new Marini" (i.e. as compared to the old, or former, Marini)? This is how I have interpreted it.
Berolinensis,
My comments were not directed specifically towards you, but rather towards whoever it was who thought the vestments were "ugly."
Here's my point: of course it's alright to suggest improvements, etc. But what I get tired of is when the Pope is CLEARLY making improvements, people continue to nitpick what was wrong, acting all upset that he didn't do exactly what he wanted to. I won't say that you were specifically doing that, but I hope you can see my point that I wish we could just sit back for once and just enjoy the good improvements he's making without diving into the problems.
Floreat ThomasMore1535!
Michael.
http://www.saintbedestudio.bizland.com
I think another significant point is that the mass was inside the basilica even though it was scheduled to be outside in the square. In the past masses have been held outside even if it was raining (which it was).
Wikipedia has an interesting article on the papal mass at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Mass has a picture of John XXIII celebrating mass and using the VII candle. It would also be neat if they brought back the silver trumpets to mark the consecration instead of a bell.
Shawn: "new Marini" would be "nuovo Marini" (masculine), whereas "nouva" is feminine.
ThomasMore1535: We basically agree, then. However, I still see no wrong if, after sufficiently rejoicing in these tremendous improvements, which I did and do, some IMHO less desirable aspects like the ones I enumerated (and the vestments were only the fourth and least important issue) are mentioned. For the sake of discussion, and without wanting to diminish thereby the enormous positive aspects. This is quite different from always only seeing the negative.
To make it clear once more: Yesterday's and today's celebration were a huge step forward in the Reform of the Reform, and I am overjoyed. But that doesn't mean I have to wear blinders.
Michael: I'm gonna remind you of that the next time you condemn a baroque mitre in a splendid celebration ;-)
Berolinensis,
Duly noted and I think you can chalk that up to my bad memory! The context in which it was mentioned seemed to imply the "new Marini" and I think I just mis-stepped with the Italian word.
I've made the correction in my original comment.
Again, worry not, you are certainly not one who is unduly critical and your comments are always quite beneficial to the NLM I think all can agree.
Well Berolinensis, when Old Mass devotees are tempted to break out 2ft tall mitres with a riot of baroque foliage, they might want to take another look at Pius IX's mitre, worn by our Beloved Benedict. It represents a tasteful compromise between the mediaeval and the baroque.
I will help to make sure folk remember it ;)
On Good Friday of 2006, I remember seeing Pope Benedict attended by two cardinal deacons in dalmatics. I don't know if he's done it any other time.
I think it's a great reminder of what the College of Cardinals really is: the deacons, priests, and suburbicarian bishops of the Roman church. Even though they may all in fact be bishops today, their function as cardinals is grounded in the offices they hold in the Roman church and the specific relation they have to its bishop. Thus, while these two cardinals-deacons may enjoy episcopal dignity, they are deacons as far as the Roman church is concerned.
Kenjiro,
The use of seventh candle might be related to jurisdiction. This is why a Bishop could only use it when celebrating in the territory of his jurisdiction.
As the Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff, the Pope had the privilege of using it everywhere he said Mass (although in the old days they did not travel as much nor said Solemn Masses frequently or outside Rome).
**Would you happen to know the site dedicated to Mgr. Dante? Since he was Italian (Roman), it makes sense that the site be in Italian.
General: Mgr. Guido is doing an excellent job! He is new and, in addition to that, most of the people he has to guide/direct during the ceremonies are certainly not used to doing things gracefully and as reverently as Mgr. Guido might be.
At such big events and places with a great number of people, there are things over which the M.C. will have very little control. As he continues to settle in and get used to the number of people, dimension of locations, etc., etc., etc., we can be sure that Mgr. Guido's natural gracefulness and reverence when directing the Papal ceremonies will be much more visible.
Baroque foliage can be quite lovely actually, as can gothic revival fleur-de-lys.
Anything in any style can be done well or done poorly.
With that in mind, let's not have a combox debate about it again, agree or no with that synopsis.
My favourite picture is where Pope Benedict is clearly gazing upon the altar Crucifix during the consecration of the Precious Blood.
The central positioning of the Crucifix not only helps the priest to orient himself towards God but it also helps the faithful in the pews to see that he is praying to God and not to talking them.
During the Sacred Liturgy done versus populum it use to take me a few moments to try and figure out whether the priest was praying to God or talking to the people in the pews since he was looking straight at us. Therefore I would simply listen to him talk rather than praying the Mass.
Ad orientem definitely assists the faithful to direct their focus on worshiping God rather than wondering who Father is speaking to.
Benedetto!!! Benedetto!! Benedetto!!
Gracias Infinitas a Cristo Rey por habernos dado un Papa según su Corazón. Hay esperanza también para el Novus Ordo
Viva El Papa!!
After reading some of the comments I wonder what will please many of those who post a comment. All the concern about six or seven candlesticks, the height of mitres etc,etc. You are forgetting that all this concern over rubrics was one of the reasons for the reforms forty years ago. Most Catholics are not interested in that now,or forty years ago.
It would also be neat if they brought back the silver trumpets to mark the consecration instead of a bell.
Aquila, there are not 'silver trumpets', but a symphony called the 'Silveri Symphony' that is played.
From wikipedia (on the Pontifical High Mass article here under the heading 'Papal High Mass' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pon...Mass#Papal_Mass : )
At the elevations of host and chalice, the Silveri symphony was played on the trumpets of the no longer existing Noble Guard. (Through a misunderstanding of the name "Silveri", English speakers sometimes referred to this as the sounding of "silver trumpets".)
As for the seven candles, it was a holdover from the days when seven Acolytes of the district held seven candlesticks before the Altar, as someone already pointed out. The following from Ordo Romanus I (translation by E. G. Atchley):
...Then the Pontiff, rising, gives his right hand to the Archdeacon, and his left to the second [Deacon] or whoever may be appointed: who, after kissing his hands, walk with him as his supporters. Then the Subdeacon-attendant goes before him with the
censer, diffusing the perfume of incense: and the seven Collets of the district which is responsible for that day, carrying seven lighted candlesticks, go before the Pontiff
to the altar...After (the inspection of the Holy Element) the Pontiff passes on, but before he comes to the Choir the nearers of the candlesticks divide, four going to the right and three to the left; and the pontiff passes between them to the upper part of the choir, and bows his head to the Altar.
From the Ordo of St. Amand:
Then the collets light their candlestick before the sacristy; and the Pontiff comes out of the sacristy with the Deacons, two of them supporting him, on the right and the left, and there go before him the seven candlesticks, and the Subdeacon-attendant with a censer...And when the pontiff had approached the choir, the Collets stand there with the candlesticks, their order being changed, the last being first.
Chancel Scrren's comment reminds me of what a Protestant would say.
Lack of interest in things like rubrics, proper or impressive vesture and ceremony etc. is why the Catholic Church is in the really awful mess with regards to the Mass thatwe are today.
Thank God we have a Pope who does care about these things....and is determined that the rest of the Church learn to care about proper liturgy, music etc. again too.
Otherwise, we might as well be like the Lutherans, Baptists, and all the rest. Not a very appealing option.
And where is this site devoted to the late, great Cardinal Priest of St Agatha of the Goths?
Actually "Chancel Screen", the matter of rubrics, ceremonial, etc. has always been something specialist in orientation.
Don't fool yourself either, the progressivists are as interested in those things as any other movement or group; they're just interested in them in their own particular ways.
You have to consider it this way: Catholic theologians and philosophers (like non-Catholic one's) get into point of minutiae, precisely because they have a specialist interest.
This is rather natural. The key is to always keep matters in perspective. Some matters will be more important than others; some more negotiable and some less.
Indeed, on that front, as some of us have noted, we need to keep in front of our eyes the very, very good things going on here. We have very much to be thankful for. These pictures made my whole morning yesterday.
May I post a reminder about this sight. I don't think anyone here is being overly critical, at least in this strain. I think we all realize that those who post on here have an unusually high sensitivity to things liturgical. I think it is ok to vent, state opinion, and ruminate about different aspects as long as it is done in a spirit of discussion, and not that our salvation rests on a mitre or 7th candlestick.
So I think we should all rest in the fact that this sight is for us, provided by Shawn, to express our thoughts in a respectful way. This is by far one of the best strands I've ever read on here. Everyone has been respectful while stating their opinion. We are all pulling for Guido (Sounds like a Kevin Smith movie) and the pope.
This is academic fun! Let's keep it that way! We're among friends here!
PS THanks Shawn!!!!!!!!!!!!
the traditional ad orientem posture -- i.e. with he and the faithful sharing a common physical direction on the same side of the altar.
More like "when the priest turns his back to the congregation" - just like when Jesus turned his back to the apostles at the last supper!
Joseph Ratzinger wrote, "Is the cross disruptive during Mass?"
Of course it is when it obscures Jesus Christ Himself in the Eucharist. Jesus is not the cross nor a bronze crucifix - or anything man-made for that matter.
Looking at the photos with the clutter on the altar, Jesus would easily be hidden behind the very thing the Holy Father would have as the focal point. The gaudy and over-the-top candles actually detract from what is really taking place, and have no place on something so sacred as the altar upon which Our Lord represents His sacrifice. How can the Holy Father allow for the altar to be desecrated in such a way?
Why would he have us look to created things rather than the Creator himself?
I say keep the altars free of clutter so that Jesus Christ might be clearly seen by all when He transforms bread into His Body and Blood.
To those reading these comments, please forgive me for the tone of my previous two posts. I am rather surprised at my reaction to the photos and have much to bring to Our Lord in prayer in this matter.
One cannot deny that the Holy Spirit through Pope Benedict is leading the Church to a greater sense of the sacred during the liturgies. This is long overdue, and glory be to God for selecting Cardinal Ratzinger to be in the line of St. Peter’s succession so that the Church will regain an understanding of the transcendence that takes place during the Mass.
My concern is that in this process, many including myself will fall into the trap of looking to the externals to the point of overlooking Jesus Christ, Himself. The Pharisees were of this mindset, and Jesus got under their skin for allowing His disciples to live more loosely than following the rigid rules/rubrics established through centuries of life under the Law.
I guess, what I’m trying to say is that the liturgy is only means to an end who is Jesus Christ whose presence we must emulate if we are to be true to our calling as Christians.
jrc
the problem of todays poor liturgy isa precisely to the attitude you express- and that is the idea that attention to detail (the minutae as you call it) somehow gets in the way of the holy spirit. In fact the opposite is true. OPlanning and rehearsal and attention to such detyails as you find objectionable are precisely necessary to then get out of the way and let the liturgy happen.
Im so tired of comments that equate a love of liturgical detail with idolatry. Does God care whether tjhere are 6 or 7 candelsticks at the altar? Probably not, nor does the person in the pews, but thank God somebody does enough to dedicate their lives to serving God through such attention to detail so that the average person in the pews can experience a reverent beautiful liturgy steeped in the traditions of our fathers. To attack such servants of the church while complaining about lack of reverence strikes me as hypocritical and ungrateful.
to those who love the english language, please forgive that horrible sentence structure of my last post.
JRG,
There are deeper issues here, historically or theologically, than that. I see you've somewhat retracted, and for that I personally thank you; just be careful.
Our approach to the sacred mysteries and Christ in the liturgy is very much what drives issues like ad orientem, as well as the placement of the cross and candles and so forth for they bespeak of what our main focus is.
It is very much about putting Christ at the centre and in front.
We must also remember that by offering things of beauty, we do so in a way that is likewise theocentric, and a reflection of the divine beauty. The sacred and transcendent should be shrouded in beauty.
Keep in mind as well the wisdom and work of the Holy Spirit down the ages from whence these things came and developed.
For the rest of us: the issues that JRG brings forward are very much many of the confusions that exist today precisely because of the liturgical situation we have found ourselves in for decades. We have a need to bring forth clearly, as Benedict is trying to do, the teaching of the Church on these issues. These are good reminders, and opportunities, to try to bring a (charitable) evangelical zeal to promoting the sacred liturgy as the "source and summit."
I think JRG's reaction might be to the fact that in the arrangement depicted the consecrated species is obscured, even during the elevations, by the cross and candle sticks. In the typical ad orientem set up, when the priest elevates the body and blood of Christ, the congregation has a clear and unobstructed view. That is not the case here. I don't think (pace Cardinal Ratzinger) that people object to the priest's face being obscured by the altar cross, but rather to their view of the Eucharist being obstructed. I know that this would be my primary objection to such an arrangement.
That little white chair needs to go. Perhaps it is more easily moved during a Mass than the throne we saw during the consitory over the weekend. Oh well. Can't belly ache too much. And anyway, not everything will happen overnight. I'm sure we'll continue to see some beautiful changes at St. Peters and elsewhere.
DON ROY – You’re right – I am a hypocrite and am quite ungrateful. Please pray for me.
Shawn, I agree with all you say. Thanks for your words of caution.
F.C. – you reiterate my point exactly. There are enough distractions during the Mass that detract from Christ who presents Himself in Word and in Sacrament at every liturgy around the world. I am encouraged to see what is going on at the Vatican, as I am at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington.
My main concern is anything that hinders one encountering Jesus Christ in the Mass – be it out-of-tune guitars, poorly sung polyphony or mispronounced Latin.
jrg
im afraid your last post just made you loose all credability with me and your above apology for the somewhat confrontational tone of your earlier posts now rings pretty hollow.
To reiterate:
Minutiae Matters!!
It does not change the nature of God, but it does shape our attitude toward Him and how we relate to God through His revelation through the Church and her God given sacraments, symbols, signs, and "mysteries".
Let's be perfectly clear. Important, yes, necessary for salvation, well...sort of.
Another thing
sarcastically requesting prayer in response to a good faith discussion strikes me as a tad unfortunate. If there is something you would like to refute, fine, but,as personal experience has taught me, sarcasm accomplishes little, obscures any point you were trying to make, and hurts much.
Ive had to apologize several times in this forum for the hurt I caused through sarcasm. You may wish to do the same
jpg,
Don't worry about beauty in the sacred liturgy obscuring or diminishing the worship of God, the effect is just the opposite. Of course, unless somehow protestantism has tainted someone's mind (ie,images) and in that case I agree that fighting against protestant thoughts is distracting.
I would recommend reading Sacramentum Caritatis for a greater Catholic understanding of the Sacred Liturgy.
Also, don't worry about seeing the Consecration at the altar, most people can't and it doesn't matter. As Our Lord said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."~St. John 20:29
Ironically, I think you are thinking too externally. Images are very helpful for humans to stir up our interior dispositions, in this case raising and stirring our spirits to loving and worshiping God.
"How can the Holy Father allow for the altar to be desecrated in such a way?"--JRG
What an outrageous and senseless accusation aganist the Holy Father and Father Marini! Shame on you!
DON ROY,
Everything I have written has been in good faith.
I apologize for any hurt I may have cause you or anyone else on this blog.
I obviously have much to learn.
Deborah, thanks for your suggestion. Where may I get a copy?
I did not intend for the previous comment to be "anonomous."
Still learning.
jrg
jrg
I understand. I must also apologize because I was not clear in my first post to you that i was not so much commenting on your post but on several others that seem to dismiss this entire blog by confusing interest in traditional liturgy with closed minded liturgical snobbery.
Actually the pope is presiding facing East in this photo.
Remember St Peter's is not orientated but occidentated.
Fr Bosco
www.liturgy.co.nz
The white armchair is much too diminutive for placement in such a grand place as St. Peter's, but that gilded throne looks too unwieldy to shuffle around during the proceedings.
A better solution is to use the Altar of the Chair in the apse for placement of the pontifical throne, toghether with the old damask-covered baldachino that I saw on many occasions years ago. The wreckovations of Virgilio Noe would have to be reversed, of course. We can hope (and pray)!
Indeed, the arrangement and positioning at the altar in St. Peter's that we saw the other day would be the same there as it would have been in the pre-conciliar days, given the unique orientation and preservation of the literal Eastward (as opposed to liturgically "Eastward") direction of liturgical prayer in the Roman Basilicas.
jrg, Here is the link to Sacramentum Caritatis (February 2007)
it is really beautiful to see the altar of s. pietro the way it was designed to look. if only all altars around the world could simply look like they were designed to look. you can't make something as big as s. pietro look like a housechurch just by using smaller candles on the altar. i guess they realized it. and why do people always have to use the candlesticks they used to use at the requiem mass on the floor at the sides of altars? it's kind of creepy.
Deborah, thanks for the link! This will be my Advent reading.
DON ROY, thanks for the clarification. I am ashamed to admit that the tone of my first two posts would lead one to conclude exactly as you did.
The Holy Spirit is causing my foundation to shift somewhat due to Pope Benedict's leadership in matters liturgical, and this is a rather uncomfortable place to be for someone who is of the felt banner & guitar post Vaitcan II generation - where the mindset has been, "I'm okay, you're okay, God's okay" - in that order.
Actually the pope is presiding facing East in this photo.
Remember St Peter's is not orientated but occidentated.
I'm not sure if this was directed at my earlier comment, but in case it was: I realize that the Pope is celebrating ad orientem in these photos. My point was that when celebrating ad orientem involves having the altar between the celebrant and the people, as it does in St. Peter's, it might be understandable that, given the development of Catholic "visual piety" of the Eucharist since the later Middle Ages, people would not want their view of the consecrated species obscured by the altar cross and candles.
Sorry, the last comment was mine.
jrg
thanks! believe me, Ive done the same thing!
FC
I think you make a very good point. In fact, these pictures show what happens when you have 6 candels and crucifix in an O.F. Vs populum mass.
One solution might be 2 candelsticks and small crucifix on the altar and 2 larger candelsticks aon either side of the altar.
In modern (read ugly) churches perhaps when commen sense renovation happens to restore the tabernacle to its proper space perhaps one could replace the presiders "throne" with 6 tall candelsticks, flanking the central tabernacle behind the free standing altar. Not perfect but its a start.
Shawn,
I thought pre-conciliar Popes always faced away from the people toward the West (perhaps the liturgical east). Is this not true???
All the photos I have seen indicate this.
Thanks!
I agree with Deborah. The question is not so much of seeing the elevated host, as of having faith in the efficacy of the Sacrament.
I would like to remind those who would require an uninterrupted view of the host elevated that in the Eastern rites of the church the iconostasis (Ikon screen) hides the sanctuary from the people's view entirely. This is not to say that it is wrong or profane to gaze on the sacrament (indeed the very practice of elevation derives from the Middle Ages, when the faithful would rush from side altar to side altar in the great churches, just to set eyes on the Host at the moment of elevation at each priest's low mass), but that it is not necessarily right to emphasise visual communion over spiritual. Indeed, if I remember correctly, Cardinal Ratzinger has described the six candles and crucifix as set up in these pictures as forming a 'mini iconostasis' whose function is precisely to inhibit the view and to change the way people participate in the rite, emphasising the sense of mystery and transcendence.
The visual element, then, is a question of externals; how the mass is 'dressed'. Thus, what is important is the altar's place in the liturgical culture (a word which is of course derived from the Latin 'cultus'); above all in a Catholic liturgy the altar must look like a Catholic altar. The presence of six soaring candlesticks, a beautiful crucifix with our Lord suspended for the Priest, a rich antependium, fair white linen on top, a cloud of incense around and about - all of these things have deep cultural resonances for Catholics, for they are part of the culture of the Mass, and they beckon the faithful to enter into the spirituality of the mass.
jrg, welcome. I hope you find thought-provoking things here. Could I ask if you've ever been to a mass celebrated ad orientem? (Preferably one with the morning sunlight streaming through the east windows onto the altar!) It's quite an experience!
Did somebody else noticed the fact that, unlike previous Papal Masses with Archbishop Piero Marini, this time the Papal MC (Msgr. Guido) was sitting very much closer to the Pope than the second MC (who was, therefore, closer to the first Cardinal Deacon, Cardinal Castrillón. He looked almost like HIS MC!)? I thought the stools were put assimetrical by error, but later on I realised it was on purpose. Does somebody know the meaning of this?
Another detail regarding that mitre the Pope used: I liked very much the fact that it had two small spheres on each point, in front of it and at the back. That made it look very much like some mitres in old pictorical representations.
Regarding the beautiful papal throne we saw at the Consistory, I think it was used because, somehow, in that celebration the Pope was the "center" of the whole ceremony. But it was not used at Mass on Sunday because the "center" of every Mass is the altar and the Eucharist. In other words, this time it wasn't about the Pope and his cardinals, but about the Sacrifice of the altar.
Therefore, I am afraid (I would love to be wrong) we will continue to see that white armchair at Papal Masses, at least while the Pope continues to sit there.
Al, I absolutely agree with you.
Gustavo: that is why we must hope that the Pope returns to sit back in the apse. However, I think the throne we saw at the consistory and thrones like it were never used during Mass. Instead, a simpler but high-back chair, covered in white or red cloth was used.
Here used by Pius XII:
http://i236.photobucket.com/albu...pg?
t=1194982645
John XXIII: http://i236.photobucket.com/albu...pg?
t=1195616331
Paul VI: http://i236.photobucket.com/albu...pg?
t=1194983701
I think the Pope could well return to this (perhaps - although not if I am to decide ;-) - with a few less steps and drapery).
Different,
Pre-conciliar Popes and post-conciliar Popes have always faced toward the cardinal direction of the East in the Roman Basilicas. As such, Pius XII, for example, would have been on the same side of the altar as Benedict XVI or JP2 were. The only difference, until this past weekend, was the way the altar was setup as regards cross and candles.
Al – thanks for the welcome! Because of this blog, already I am beginning to reevaluate my understanding of the liturgy – and Deborah’s comments speak directly to what was lacking in my understanding. (Thanks, Deborah! :-))
When I first saw the photos of the consecration for the consistory, my immediate reaction was quite negative. The middle photo especially – of the elevation of the chalice – reminded me of St. Stephen Martyr on Pennsylvania Ave., NW in Washington before its renovations. The tabernacle was BEHIND a gosh—awful bronze grate that spanned the entire space – from floor to ceiling and 3/4ths the width of the Church behind the altar. All I could think was that we put Jesus behind bars – in jail – much like in Dostoyevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor.” That’s what first came to mind seeing the chalice between the tall candle sticks – Jesus jailed again by us – and by the Holy Father, no less – but no - Pope Benedict was behind bars with Jesus! Free Jesus! Free the Pope! (I’m making way too much out of this; sorry folks!)
But as I looked more closely, it occurred to me that the tall candles and crucifix were in fact forming a form of mini iconostasis. Then I thought, “that’s kinda cool – but that’s not us – that the Eastern rite!” I’ve had the good fortune to attend eastern rite services both in our nation’s capital and New Orleans and love the beauty and transcendence they have in their liturgies. It is good to see that Pope Benedict is driving the Church toward the same in the Latin rite. Not sure, though that the tall candles & crucifix are the way to go; my initial reaction was quite negative, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there were many more who might have similar reactions and use this as yet another reason to stay away from the Church.
And thanks for asking. I HAVE been to a few Masses celebrated ad orientem – at both Old St. Mary’s in Washington’s Chinatown, and St. Patrick’s in downtown New Orleans. I’m referring to the rite of my parent’s generation before Vatican II. (I’ve read many different terms for this rite and don’t want to expose even more of my ignorance by calling it what it isn’t - I know it as the “Tridentine Mass.”)
These masses did nothing for me. The only comment I can make is that I am grateful that this is no longer the universal rite for the Church. Can’t put my finger on it except to say that they were so inaccessible that I tuned out. Perhaps it was too much work – perhaps too foreign – perhaps too other-worldly that made me uncomfortable – perhaps I was not engaged at all and so far removed from what was taking place. I don’t know. Then, I understood a bit about Catholic formation because of the liturgy – no wonder Catholics didn’t know Scripture – no wonder folks were praying the Rosary during the liturgy – no wonder so much faith was put in the priest who supposedly had all the answers about the Church – no wonder folks were leaving the Church to encounter Christ apart f
– no wonder folks were leaving the Church to encounter Christ apart from the sacraments. I’m over generalizing here, I know and am talking out of my a** - but this has been my experience and my perceptions of attending the “Tridentine” Masses (for lack of a better term).
Take it for what it’s worth. Sorry for rambling like this. I’m grateful for this blog, and for your indulgence and patience with someone who loves Christ but isn’t quite a fan of the old rite. As I have said, I have much to learn and hope to do so by continuing to read this blog. Truly the Church is much greater than me!
I only have a quick minute to respond but one quick thought to keep in mind is that the liturgy of which you speak has spiritually fed and nourished, and continues to nourish, many people and saints down the ages.
We should remember too that anything new to one's experience can be somewhat jarring. People who aren't Catholic coming to even the modern Roman rite find it very foreign, with all its responses, actions, etc. and they may be quite uncomfortable for the first while. This is natural, but its not always the best position to make an assessment.
Fine wine as well is something that takes a little time to acquire the taste for.
But these things do not make something lacking or not good. As the Pope as said, what was sacred [i.e. the liturgy as it was expressed not only prior to the Council, but substantially for the life of the Western Church] remains sacred for us too.
As he said elsewhere as Cardinal, if we call that into question, we put the Church into very question.
This doesn't mean one can't find merit in this or that development, or even prefer such (provided it is a legitimate and lawful development of course), but we should approach our traditions with veneration and the utmost respect.
Glad to hear that you are learning and reading. Welcome aboard JRG! We're glad to have you here.
Indeed, Berolinensis.
I have seen too those huge thrones (white or red) when the Pope sat at the apse in old Masses. I would love to see THAT. Putting that throne where the Pope sits these days would be absolutely impossible.
I read somewhere that there was the idea to put the papal throne at the left of the nave, exactly in front of the bronze statue of St. Peter. I think that would be an intelligent solution. Thus, we could get rid of that ugly platform covering the Confession.
A nice detail: Pope Benedict already used that tall white throne seen in those pictures. It was when he took possesion of St. Paul outside the Walls. And, of course, he was sitting in the apse.
jrg,
You are welcome.
Just a quick trivia fact: 60% (the majority) of Catholics stopped attending Mass when the modern rite was forced on them. I have talked with some faithful souls who are in their 80's and 90's who have shared their experiences with me of how awful things were for traditional Catholics in the 60's and 70's. Their voices still quiver with both sadness and anger.
So I think these facts alone make it pretty clear most Catholics loved the traditional Roman rite prior to the reform.
Some reforms were good, many were not and there were far too many changes. For example, most agree that the readings and homily in the vernacular are good reforms.
What you have a distaste for now will change (I guarantee it.) over time as you become more and more consciously aware of the deeper meanings behind the mysteries of Holy Mass in the prayers, the gesures, the postures, and every small detail of the sacred Liturgy.
You may or may not be ready yet to allow everything to sink in. God only knows so trust that He will reveal truths to you about your Catholic faith as He sees your heart is open to them.
BTW, are you attending any protestant services right now? Please don't be offended. The reason I ask is because sometimes I see the same reaction as yours from those who are searching for the Truth in many places. I could be totally wrong though.
Yes, Gustavo, tear out that ugly platform over the confessio! Put the throne in the apse or off to the left and the need for that plywood monstrosity is eliminated.
Deborah
In the US at least, the change in ritual was not the source of widespread bitterness among Catholics who chose to stop regular assistance at Mass - that was a rare complaint in the late 1960s and 1970s. Rather, Humanae Vitae (which had a result that was not anticipated by the faithful - but that's a separate discussion - and the feeling that church rules were arbitrary and capricious*, plus growing assimilation and the general anti-authoritarian winds of the day, made for most of the immediate sense of change that transpired, on top of longer term issues.
* A classic example of which being the many people whose catechesis about fasting had been fairly brittle and shallow found the about-face on eating meat on Fridays exposed a lack of credibility re the former regime of practice, et cet.
"BTW, are you attending any protestant services right now? Please don't be offended. The reason I ask is because sometimes I see the same reaction as yours from those who are searching for the Truth in many places. I could be totally wrong though."
Thanks for the question, Deborah, and I am not offended in the least. It’s been a few years since I was invited to attend a Protestant service, but I am beginning to see that I might have a bit of a protestant “bent” as my conversion took place outside the Church in an evangelical, non-denominational setting.
Nevertheless, I actually have the good fortune of attending Mass during my lunch hour. A day without the Eucharist is really a day without eating.
Commenting by HaloScan
