The altar

  • Thread starter Thread starter beckers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking Home:
I have actually been basing myself on SC from Vat. II. Was its intention to do away with Altars …
A simple search of SC from Vat. II states nothing whatsoever about the altar except to say these laws are in revision. The document I referenced above is the actual instruction provided for in SC, and which denotes “free standing.”
  1. Along with the revision of the liturgical books, as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the nobility, placing, and safety of the eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity and suitability of the baptistery, the proper ordering of sacred images, embellishments, and vestments. Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking.
Pope Benedict has this to say in Sacramentum Caritas:
He (Jesus) is priest, victim and altar: the mediator between God the Father and his people (cf. Heb 5:5-10), the victim of atonement (cf. 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) who offers himself on the altar of the Cross.
This I believe is what other posters were trying to express, that the altar, while important and requiring noble beauty, is not the essence (for them) — Jesus is. 😉
 
A simple search of SC from Vat. II states nothing whatsoever about the altar except to say these laws are in revision. The document I referenced above is the actual instruction provided for in SC, and which denotes “free standing.”

Pope Benedict has this to say in Sacramentum Caritas:

This I believe is what other posters were trying to express, that the altar, while important and requiring noble beauty, is not the essence (for them) — Jesus is. 😉

Yes–I know SC does not say anything pertaining to the Altar. As to the instruction IO—There does not seem to be any reference to any article in SC to base the restructuring of our Altars.

II. MAIN ALTAR
  1. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.
    Choice of materials for the construction and adornment of the altar is to respect the prescriptions of law.
    The sanctuary area is to be spacious enough to accommodate the sacred rites.
 
Yes–I know SC does not say anything pertaining to the Altar. As to the instruction IO—There does not seem to be any reference to any article in SC to base the restructuring of our Altars.
Read the beginning of the I.O. document, and it should erase your doubt. I trust you know that a M.P. is binding? Many TLM advocates are anxiously awaiting just such a document, and will consider it to be infallible, no?
  1. The Consilium, which Pope Paul VI established by the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, has promptly taken up its two appointed tasks: to carry out the directives of the Constitution (SC) and of Sacram Liturgiam and to provide the means for interpreting these documents and putting them into practice.
  1. That these documents should immediately be properly carried out everywhere and any possible doubts on interpretation removed are matters of the utmost importance. Therefore, by papal mandate, the Consilium has prepared the present Instruction. It sets out more sharply the functions of conferences of bishops in liturgical matters, explains more fully those principles stated in general terms in the aforementioned documents, and authorizes or mandates that those measures that are practicable before revision of the liturgical books go into effect immediately.
 
Read the beginning of the I.O. document, and it should erase your doubt. I trust you know that a M.P. is binding? Many TLM advocates are anxiously awaiting just such a document, and will consider it to be infallible, no?

The MP was for the establishment of the Consilium. If our current Pope then Card–stated that there has been a problem with the implementation of the Council----this could also include the interpretation taken by members of the Consilium and a Pope who depended on this interpretation and sign off on it.

I. NATURE OF THIS INSTRUCTION
  1. Among the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council’s primary achievements must be counted the Constitution on the Liturgy, since it regulates the most exalted sphere of the Church’s activity. The document will have ever richer effects as pastors and faithful alike deepen their understanding of its genuine spirit and with good will put it into practice.
  2. The Consilium, which Pope Paul VI established by the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, has promptly taken up its two appointed tasks: to carry out the directives of the Constitution and of Sacram Liturgiam and to provide the means for interpreting these documents and putting them into practice.
  3. That these documents should immediately be properly carried out everywhere and any possible doubts on interpretation removed are matters of the utmost importance. Therefore, by papal mandate, the Consilium has prepared the present Instruction. It sets out more sharply the functions of conferences of bishops in liturgical matters, explains more fully those principles stated in general terms in the aforementioned documents, and authorizes or mandates that those measures that are practicable before revision of the liturgical books go into effect immediately.
 
If our current Pope then Card–stated that there has been a problem with the implementation of the Council----this could also include the interpretation taken by members of the Consilium and a Pope who depended on this interpretation and sign off on it.
That opinion of then Card. was his personal opinion. What weight should this have on our discussion? It seems you are attempting to say that because of his opinion, therefore the altars in our churches throughout the world that have free standing altars in accordance with directives of I.O. are abuses. That is reeeeeally stretching it.

I provided the documentation. It is from the Church. The renovations have been carried out. If you wish to disagree and cling to a nebulus statement by Card. Ratzinger that does not specifically designate the “altar” as being a lack of Council implementations —well and good.

However, the free standing altar, until someone in authority changes the discipline, is not an abuse. It is permitted, as directed by the document I.O.
I intend to maintain my opinion, as you are free to do also. 😃
 
That opinion of then Card. was his personal opinion. What weight should this have on our discussion? It seems you are attempting to say that because of his opinion, therefore the altars in our churches throughout the world that have free standing altars in accordance with directives of I.O. are abuses. That is reeeeeally stretching it.

I provided the documentation. It is from the Church. The renovations have been carried out. If you wish to disagree and cling to a nebulus statement by Card. Ratzinger that does not specifically designate the “altar” as being a lack of Council implementations —well and good.

However, the free standing altar, until someone in authority changes the discipline, is not an abuse. It is permitted, as directed by the document I.O.
I intend to maintain my opinion, as you are free to do also. 😃

Yes it is permitted—but this in itself does not diminish that what we know as the implementation of the Council may not be what the Council actually intented. Did the Council intent to have a free standing Altar so that the priest face the people.

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html

The Orientation of Prayer
  1. The cosmic conception of salvation which “is visited from on high” (Lk 1:78), inspired the apostolic tradition of orientating Christian buildings and the altar towards the East, so as to celebrate the Eucharist facing the Lord, a custom still followed in the Eastern Churches. “It is not a question, as is often claimed, of presiding at the celebration with the back turned to the people, but rather of guiding the people in pilgrimage towards the Kingdom, invoked in prayer until the return of the Lord.”193]
 
Did the Council intent to have a free standing Altar so that the priest face the people.
Do you KNOW that they DID NOT? I believe this matter was referred to the Consilium. What are you attempting to prove? That they were wrong? That the Pope should never have approved it?
( I should have remembered that you are a person who will fight to the death.) :rolleyes:
  1. The cosmic conception of salvation which “is visited from on high” (Lk 1:78), inspired the apostolic tradition
Pulling isolated sentences out of context is not going to change our altars one whit without authority from above. If your design is to impute doubt that the Consilium failed to do it according to your thinking or “tradition,” (note the past tense above) remember that the document was approved by the Pope and set into motion. Free-standing altars are not an abuse.

Maybe in your dislike for everything that is not old tradition, you would like to direct everyone to change, or at least cast doubts that the Church was not following the Council thereby. It won’t happen, so as I suggested before, keep your own opinion as you are free to do so.

For what it’s worth, maybe if enough traditionists petition the Pope, maybe he’ll listen to you all. Beyond this, I am not interested in further debate since nothing is capable of presently being changed, regardless of what each of us thinks. I dislike seeing the Church villified in this manner as though they do not have a right sense of what they are doing.
 
Do you KNOW that they DID NOT? I believe this matter was referred to the Consilium. What are you attempting to prove? That they were wrong? That the Pope should never have approved it?
( I should have remembered that you are a person who will fight to the death.) :rolleyes:

Pulling isolated sentences out of context is not going to change our altars one whit without authority from above. If your design is to impute doubt that the Consilium failed to do it according to your thinking or “tradition,” (note the past tense above) remember that the document was approved by the Pope and set into motion. Free-standing altars are not an abuse.

Maybe in your dislike for everything that is not old tradition, you would like to direct everyone to change, or at least cast doubts that the Church was not following the Council thereby. It won’t happen, so as I suggested before, keep your own opinion as you are free to do so.

For what it’s worth, maybe if enough traditionists petition the Pope, maybe he’ll listen to you. Beyond this, I am not interested in further debate since nothing is capable of presently being changed, regardless of what each of us thinks.

Getting kinda fiesty there Rykell. As to the fighting to death—It would seem —some of our Saints had that conviction. It is not a bad example to follow.

All in all—we have Pope Benedict. We will see where he takes us.
 

I am pretty sure our late Pope knew about the free standing Altar at St. Peters—yet he still wrote what he did. You should know by now—the wrecking of our churches and Altars–it is all part of the “spirit of Vat II”.

Oh—JPII in Ecclesia de Eucharistia went on to say this:

“It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.”
So many Catholics are suffering and have been for 40 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top