Dear brother,
Yes, I know it was. That doesn’t mean that it cannot be reformed or changed. I know why the priests remove their hats, but the constant on and off is distracting. We’ve managed to only have the bishops wearing miters in Church for quite a while (surely you aren’t going to argue that birettas are a part of the deposit of faith), we manage to bow at the name of Jesus. Why not simply continue the practice of NOT wearing hats in the church? The lifting of the skirt of the alb is extraneous. We could go to a lot of ridiculous lengths to demonstrate or reinforce that the Priest is in persona Christi, like carrying him in and out of the church. I happen to think that the deacon and subdeacon lifting his skirt is a silly affectation.
Well, I do admit that the issue is one of purely personal taste, but if I were to compare Mother Angelica’s church to the cathedral in Los Angeles, example, I would say that the latter is a radical departure from the Church’s understanding of architecture in worship and the former fits it better.
I thought it was beautiful…but our parish has Mass in the school auditorium and the other churches in the area are those modern type architecture that’s not very appealing either. So let me tell you I loved everything about the Shrine, even that partition that covers the monstrance; the floor is wild! And I’d love to see those Stations of the Cross up close. I’ve never been there either. I don’t think there is anything wrong with liking the Shrine. If you don’t like it that’s fine too.
I don’t know what to tell you. Should I lie and say that you aren’t bound to the canons of an ecumenical council? I don’t think that would be an act of charity on my part.
Yes, but here’s the tricky thing:
Dear Brother,
You’re being rather presumptuous, don’t you think? I embraced the faith 19 years ago. And there is no dogma of the Church that I do not believe. I will die a Catholic. Also, it is PERFECTLY acceptable to refer to the skirt of a robe as just that: a skirt. No disrespect is intended. I don’t say that such things are not done in good faith, I said they were distracting AND that they were extraneous things that could be taken out of the rite without the rite suffering any loss whatsoever. The Second Vatican Council stated that the liturgy needed to be reformed, they spoke of things that could obscure the Mass and that’s what I’m talking about. I’m not arrogant enough to think that the Council would agree with my every point on what that reformation should look like, but that they thought it should be or needed to be means that it is an open question and one that can be discussed. I think the goal of a “noble simplicity” advocated by a Church Council is a worthy one.
In all fairness - Trent, in context, was talking about all the forms of the liturgy at that time which include the TLM (and was specifically defending it and them against the Protestant attacks). It is something a bit different when folks are troubled with the current liturgy in the Ordinary Form. The pope himself has commented on some of the, eh, troubling things that have popped up, and the abrupt nature if the ordinary forms “creation”. It is something quite unique in the history of the Church. Like I’ve said before, God’s part is always perfect - infinitely good. Our part…well, not so much.
Simple sign of respect - not for the man who is the priest, but for Christ who is operating in the priest - in persona Christi, remember. Everything done “for” the priest, all reverence done to him by the others serving - it’s done for Christ who is using his humble servent - the priest - to renew and represent the Sacrifice to the Father on our behalf.
At the name of Jesus! What a wonderful, simple little gesture of respect and awe at the Most Holy Name!
You’re looking at this kind of from a “worldy” sense. As if the only reason for the proclamation of the Word of God in the mass is for a sort of Bible study - it’s more than that. It’s a proclamation - a prayer - of the children of God echoing to the four corners of the earth that same Sacred Word He gave to us. In this case, in the sacred language of the Church - I would grieve this loss. I also very much appreciate it if read again by the priest in the vernacular during the homily. I would think that would be a happy medium, no?
I would disagree with this. But more than that - as Vatican II stated:Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them (SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, cf Chapter 1, A. 23)
Yes, but any reforms are to be made with the above mentioned precondition. For after the abovementioned statment (they be genuinely and certainly required) - it states :
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Rather than reject the symbolism out of hand - try looking at it with those eyes of faith and catholic tradition - and see what the symbolism is symbolizing.
Those diamonds just padded Cecil Rhodes’ legacy and not much more…
As I said I would have liked to see something that more faithfully emulated the San Damiano Church at Assisi (as the exterior does.) As I also said the basic lines of the building look pretty good. It’s largely the gauche interior that I dislike, particularly the catalog-architecture.
Oh? I don’t believe the Church has a singular “understanding of architecture in worship” or we wouldn’t have all the wonderful styles of churches we do, nor are you qualified to ascertain what would fit it better if we did.
Given the history of diamonds, and their artificially high value, I would never personally offer them to God. Maybe emeralds, but not diamonds.
Some may cry, “PLEASE, then, let me be anathama!” if they must hold to every jot and tittle of legalistic interpretations.
Often, the meanings were attributed after the practice developed for practical reasons or (it could be argued) even ones of pride. Therefore, while the interpretations have a certain value, it can also be legitimately argued that not every action is intrinsically valuable or necessary or even uplifting.
This, for example, is one perspective of personal preference as to presentation.
And such might cut both ways.
For some, not all. Others are turned off by all the pomp and circumstance and find a Sensus Catholicus in more noble simplicity.
Such as some who were not pleased with the liturgical changes of recent decades, perhaps, who ran elsewhere for greater comfort.
Amen to that!
And, yet, certain things which some would perform sincerely can also come off as poorly accomplished, tacky, or even prideful. Just because there is gold doesn’t mean it is good. Even when something is well done, it can distract of its own accord rather than lead one to contemplation of the higher beauty.
I like the ceremonial attached to the TLM, but I *did *get the impression that *some *of the gestures could have been a little more, I think the word I’m looking for is natural. Like at times the oscula was natural and at other times it wasn’t. Even the Gospel- it was sung beautifully- but I (personal opinion) felt that it was a bit too deliberate? Still, its probably easier for me to comment sitting in the armchair. I imagine that such coordination as was at the Mass takes a fair bit of practise.I just finished watching the new mass on EWTN. I must say I found it very distracting and almost like they were putting on a show with all the fancy vestments, multi million dollar monastery etc. I always considered myself to be a traditional catholic, but now I’m not so sure. I guess I’ve gotten use to the guitars…
Et magnificentia tua in diademate capitis illius erat scripta.
And your majesty was written upon the diadem of his head. .