If you want know
This is what the priesthood is about
This is what the Mass is about
This is what the Catholic Church is about
Now, in your gatherings, in the holy Church, convene yourselves modestly in places of the brethren, as you will, in a manner pleasing and ordered with care. Let the place of the priests be separated in a part of the house that faces east. In the midst of them is placed the bishop’s chair, and with him let the priests be seated. Likewise, and in another section let the laymen be seated facing east. For thus it is proper: that the priests sit with the bishop in a part of the house to the east and after them the lay men and the lay women…Now, you ought to face east to pray, for, as you know, scripture has it, Give praise to God who ascends above the highest heavens to the east…What is significant is that the correct orientation of worship was important for our forefathers. It was not arbitrary, one orientation or another was not a matter of choice, as it is still not in the Churches of the East today. One of my Orthodox friends seriously regards the Catholic Church as being protestant simply in regard of abandoning the the ancient orientation. For the Eastern Churches it is a serious issue, and not one of mere preference.
Did the priest wear the correct vestments? Was the stole worn under or over the chasuble? Was his neck-wear completely conceal by an amice or the alb, especially in the case of religious with hoods? If he were a bishop was his pectoral Cross worn correctly? Was it suspended on a cord or chain? Did he wear the correct cassock? Where was the Blessed Sacrament reserved. Were the correct chants sung? If hymns were used did these correspond to the text of the Missal. Where hymns from a list approved by the Bishop's Conference? Was anything placed before the altar, chairs, flowers to obscure its significance? Did the priest extend his hands when performing the functions of a deacon eg at the Gospel? Were the correct Offertory prayers used? Were auxiliary bishops prayed for in the Eucharistic Prayer? Was EPII used on a Sunday? Was the correct voice used for various prayers? Were additional devotions inserted into Mass? Was the liturgy interrupted by any unauthorised rite, such as praise of small children bringing pictures into church? Were the correct translations of the Mass used? Did the blessing of 'communicants' take place during the distribution of Holy Communion? Was there any dancing before, during or immediately after Mass? Were there puppets?
Thank you again Fr Hugh, your accounts have been invaluable for those us unable to the conference.
The real issue here, with the Missal, is the same as with the Council itself: how should it be read?
It is either in the hermeneutic of 'rupture': meaning forget what the documents themselves actually say, forget what scholarship says, forget what the competent authorities say, or else it is 'continuity', which means a return to a strict reading of the text, listening to what scholars are saying, and listening to competent authorities.
In this skirmish the whole battle of the VII is being played out, including the rather shameful and not quite truthful bullying by the advocates the hermaneutic rupture of those who uphold the hermeneutic of continuity.
My personal fear is that despite what the texts clearly say and is open to everyone to read, that some 'experts' really hold an arcane truth revealed only to them, it is really about de-democratising the Church, and placing control into the hands of an elite and arcane oligarchy, who despite clear evidence insist they alone have authority to make a 'correct' interpretation.
This is not just about the preference of the priest as Cdl Nichols suggests, it is about how we read and implement the Church's teaching. In the case of Cdl Nichols email to his clergy it also seems about arrogating a power to himself that properly belongs to priests.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature
reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:
Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.I have the protocol number for this letter somewhere, I can't find it at the moment perhaps someone might help out with it.
The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the
construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.
It [Subsidiarity] is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.Thus it is about personal autonomy and empowerment, and about the respect that is due to the individual and his rights and dignity.
It is the startling descent into misanthropy and insult which hurts most. That moment when Gordon Brown called Gillian Duffy a “bigot” was but a scratching of the surface. The demographic most enthusiastic about voting Leave have been dismissed as racist or xenophobic for years, but it is only in the last few days, following the referendum, that I have seen the very legitimacy of their suffrage questioned – the prosperous, well-educated liberal left, summoning Victorian-era paternalism to question the wisdom of giving votes to the ill-educated.
Of course, this chasm between party and people is of surprise only to those cloistered away amongst the like-minded. Much has been made of the demographic divide between the two competing mindsets prior to the referendum. But turning this into one-dimensional face-off between the haves and the have-nots presumes an irresolvable conflict. That’s too pessimistic: there is a way out of our current malaise.
But we first need to understand what has gone wrong. It can be summed up in a word liberalism.This from a Catholic Herald article by Michael Merrick.