Benedictine Altar Arrangement

[Aramis]

And you ignore the Pope’s directives to stop calling it the Novus Ordo (which was never the proper term anyway) and refer to it as the Roman Missal Promulagated by Pp. Paul VI, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass.

I just so love when the people IGNORE THE POPE’S DIRECTIONS… and then complain about things that are directives that the Popes have signed off on.

 

[malphono]

And you ignore the Pope’s directives to stop calling it the Novus Ordo (which was never the proper term anyway) and refer to it as the Roman Missal Promulagated by Pp. Paul VI, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass.

I just so love when the people IGNORE THE POPE’S DIRECTIONS… and then complain about things that are directives that the Popes have signed off on.

Unnecessarily nasty, Aramis. But have it your way. I’ll call it the OF. Happy now? Either way, it doesn’t change things one iota.

In any case, I hardly think that using a term which is used commonly in these fora and elsewhere is quite the same as ignoring the ad orientem posture or the benefits of the “Benedictine Arrangement.”

I’m outta here.

 

[DixitDominus]

The tradition of using seven candles on the altar is less than 800 years old, see the book, Shape of the Liturgy.

Dear DixitDominus:

No there isn’t; I assume you are referring to the USCCB. I refer you to two publications by the USCCB; Built of Living Stones and Norms for Eucharistic Celebrations ----- both USCCB publications.

Or refer to GIRM chapter 5 #306 & #307. When talking about objects placed on the altar, none are to "interfer with the faithful clear view of what takes place at the altar.

In Christ’s Service,

Br Mark, OSB

1. The candles, which are required at every liturgical service out of reverence and on account of the festiveness of the celebration (cf. above, no. 117), are to be appropriately placed either on or around the altar in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary so that the whole may be well balanced and not interfere with the faithful’s clear view of what takes place at the altar or what is placed on it.
2. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

 

[DixitDominus]

Thus the GIRM in no way prohibits the crucifix and candle sticks from being on the altar, but in fact, places that option before the option of placing the crucifix and candle sticks near it.

What say you to that, Brother Mark?

 

[ASD]

The basic concept is to keep it simple so that the real meaning of the action that is taking place can be observed.

In other words if something is blocking your view of the action that is taking place on the altar -------should it be there? And the answer is “clearly” -------- NO.

That sure sounds plausible, perfectly rational. Downright common sense. But it doesn’t accord with my own experience in the least.

I went to NO/OF Mass for years & never really understood what was going on. On the other hand, after a few months at TLM/EF I felt like I did understand. So, I think the idea that versus populum, or a clear view, means people will understand better is simplistic. Kinda condescending, actually.

Here’s the big question: Is that view supported by any evidence?

I would be grateful for any kind of facts that people could bring forward. On the other hand, it wouldn’t help much to simply assert again that it makes sense, that it must be true, or that it ought to be true. I would love to read some facts, some numbers, some evidence.

I rather suspect that a poll of Catholics who regularly attend Mass, OF and EF, would produce some pretty interesting numbers. Which group understands the Mass better? Is it the ones with a clear view, as we’ve been told lo these 40 years?

ASD​

Yes, I want to be the poster boy for Summorum Pontificum because I think my own experience demonstrates the deep wisdom of it.

 

[Br_Mark]

Dear DixitDominus,

You are correct that it does not directly prohbit the crucifix and candles from being on the altar; but if you read the rest of #307 it does state that the whole be well balanced and that it does not interfere with the faithful clear view of what takes part on the altar.

In Christ’s Service,

Br Mark, OSB

 

[DixitDominus]

Dear DixitDominus,

You are correct that it does not directly prohbit the crucifix and candles from being on the altar; but if you read the rest of #307 it does state that the whole be well balanced and that it does not interfere with the faithful clear view of what takes part on the altar.

In Christ’s Service,

Br Mark, OSB

But the GIRM must not have thought that having the crucifix and candlesticks on the altar would be problematic on those aspects as they gave placing them upon the altar as the first option.

 

[muffinmojo]

Folks, no matter what your liturgical preference…try to recall the circumstances under which the OF of the Mass and the GIRM were originally written.

The GIRM and the rubrics of the OF were written in the 60’s, with the long-held tradition and the assumption that every Mass would be celebrated ad orientem. This is just simply ‘how it worked’. Therefore, the principle actions which the congregation were viewing were mostly the setting of the altar, the priest bowing, and the elevations of the Host and Chalice. The more ‘detailed’ view that we get now is inconsequential- the priest is still directed to ‘bow his head and say in a low voice’ or something along those lines. These actions are not meant to be seen, and are not required to be seen. What this is truly talking about is the idea that the Eucharistic mystery should be hidden or shrouded, such as is done in the Eastern rites. Clearly, the Benedictine arrangement the Holy Father uses does not violate any of this…the actions which the people need to see and are required to see by the GIRM are still seen. Those that are not intended to, but are allowed to be seen by the congregation are not seen as clearly. The GIRM encourages and provides the option for full-out ad orientem posture-which in itself obscures these motions. If it were the case that the people were supposed to see these things, then the GIRM would not allow this, correct?

 

[BSHoop96]

Our priest has had a crucifix on the altar since he saw the Pope have one. It is not massive or heavy and therefore does not block the view of what is going on.

 

[bpbasilphx]

** * Six Candles
* Altar linens (we currently have an ugly cloth-type thing)
* Altar Crucifix

If all three are not possible to get at this time, the candles would be the most important, as well as the Altar linens.
**

**Last time I looked, linen was a cloth-type thing. In fact, it IS a cloth.

I would say, off the top of my head, that the Crucifix was the most important of these ornaments.**

 

[ASD]

The GIRM and the rubrics of the OF were written in the 60’s, with the long-held tradition and the assumption that every Mass would be celebrated ad orientem. … The more ‘detailed’ view that we get now is inconsequential- the priest is still directed to ‘bow his head and say in a low voice’ or something along those lines. These actions are not meant to be seen, and are not required to be seen. … Clearly, the Benedictine arrangement the Holy Father uses does not violate any of this…the actions which the people need to see and are required to see by the GIRM are still seen. Those that are not intended to, but are allowed to be seen by the congregation are not seen as clearly. The GIRM encourages and provides the option for full-out ad orientem posture-which in itself obscures these motions.

Good summary.

If it were the case that the people were supposed to see these things, then the GIRM would not allow this, correct?

That seems like a reasonable interpretation to me.

ASD​

General Instruction of the Roman Missal

 

[hamburglar]

Would ebay be a good place to find these things?