C
CatholicSooner
Guest
wow man just wow
- Status
G
graciew
Guest
Yes! That is it ! And I " stole" my mom’ s which was white and cute ti try it on. It was simple and …She gave it to me!We used “chapel veils” for the small beanie type lace and my mother wore a mantilla. If I recall correctly, only adult women wore the mantilla, and the kids wore chapel veils.
We had uniform beanies for week-day mass. Or a Kleenex if you forgot your beanie.
but I never wore it. I was really very small…You were more advanced,we used clean handkerchief, Kleenex did not exist yet here…
It is lovely to think that we have similar memories living so far apart.
P
ProVobis
Guest
No official Vatican document should be ignored. Nor should it be twisted or misinterpreted. I believe those who question translations act in good faith and shouldn’t be shown the door because they simply seek the Truth. English is a powerful analytic tool but in no way does it set new standards for our faith. Why not Polish or Spanish?
T
TMC
Guest
Well, you aren’t wrong.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t believe that the change to versus populum is the result of a mistranslation or a misunderstanding. To believe that would be to believe that the vast majority of bishops misunderstand the Church’s teaching, and that the Pope and the Vatican allow that misunderstanding to persist.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I believe you’re missing something here. As has been pointed out by OraLabora and others that versus populum isn’t something new and had been practiced on more than one location, in fact many depending on how the congregation seating was configured. It seems with the proper translation, one can see the emphasis was on future altars, to make them freestanding wherever possible so to make them visible from all sides. Personally I don’t have a problem with that. One translation had versus populum as the focal point of the directive and it seems it stuck, never mind in some cases it actually puts the priest with his back to the cross or crucifix. I asked for a theological justification for it and have not yet heard of a sound one.
T
TMC
Guest
Still, you are saying that most or all of the bishops have misunderstood or misapplied the Church’s own documents for fifty or so years. Do you think it reasonable the Church does not understand its own teaching? That the Latin words carry some import that evades even those who wrote them?
G
graciew
Guest
Sorry,Patrick,I just found this post.
No,we did not use that term. That is for sure. And it was not something I remember as a big deal for them either.
They just picked it up and put it on… Our head had to be covered ( cubierta),we did not consider ourselves " anything"
Sobriety,Simplicity.
It is as you describe it .
Sorry again I skipped your post!
In any case,I owe my faith to these adorable women and men who preceded me. My gratitude to them.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I have never had an issue with having my back facing the crucifix. In many churches where I have celebrated Mass, there is a Calvary behind the altar of sacrifice. The true focus and the focal point is to be on the altar where the synaxis occurs. It is the center of the assembled liturgical community. The reserved Sacrament is to be in a most worthy place with the greatest honour…but the altar is the center of the community.Now it seems the Pope has solidified the norms. What bishop would start changing the norms now, without raising a turmoil? Never mind if the priest turns his back on the crucifix if he has to.
As the Catechism states:
*1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord’s Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).
1183 The tabernacle is to be situated “in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor.” The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.*
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Perhaps your mother did not speak of it…mine certainly did. The last place she ever wore a hat and dress was to Mass. She did not like head coverings…although she used scarves when she was going to be out of doors and they were practical as, for example, in winter. She had a sort of babushka that she wore with certain household tasks.
She also much preferred pantsuits to dresses. As soon as the convention changed, she was very happily on the leading edge of it and did not look back. The hat was gone and the pantsuit became her outfit for all occasions. She had abandoned the convention of wearing gloves long before.
In fairness, I should mention my father. Women covered their heads in church and men uncovered their heads. Like all men of his era, he wore hats – when they were prescribed, that is, and he didn’t wear them when they were proscribed. When, basically at the same time, the convention of men and hats went the way of women and hats, my father never had a hat again for the rest of his life. As with my mother, it was a convention whose passing he did not mourn.
And by putting on a suit, would you state that you engaged in “suiting” or that you “suited” in order to attend Mass? You could speak of the benefit of being “suited” and that it helped you in some way to “suit.”
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
seems kind of minuscule to be arguing over verbiage and semantics doesn’t it?
T
TMC
Guest
Are we going to play word games now? The issue we are discussing. You are saying that the Church is misinterpreting its own guidance on the conduct of the Mass because of a mistranslation of the Latin. I think that it is ridiculous to believe that the Church does not understand its own documents, and has been implementing them incorrectly for 50 years.
J
JimG
Guest
The full English translation of Cardinal Sarah’s address can be found here:
It is a lengthy read but not difficult, and quite thoughtful. I was surprised that, rather than being a deviation from the Council, Cardinal Sarah constantly references Council documents in his address. I would have been hard pressed to find a “headline” in this talk. His remarks about the common orientation of priest and people do not come until near the end of the talk, on page 21.
Some excerpts:
“I raise this possibility of looking again at the Constitution and at the reform which followed its promulgation because I do not think that we can honestly read even the first article of Sacrosanctum Concilium today and be content that we have achieved its aims. My brothers and sisters, where are the faithful of whom the Council Fathers spoke? Many of the faithful are now unfaithful: they do not come to the liturgy at all.” ….
“In my 47 years of life as a priest and after more than 36 years of episcopal ministry I can attest that many Catholic communities and individual’”s live and pray the liturgy as reformed following the Council with fervour and joy, deriving from it many, if not all, of the goods that the Council Fathers desired. This is a great fruit of the Council. But from my experience I also know now also through my service as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that there are many distortions of the liturgy throughout the Church today, and there are many situations that could be improved so that the aims of the Council can be achieved.”
It is a lengthy read but not difficult, and quite thoughtful. I was surprised that, rather than being a deviation from the Council, Cardinal Sarah constantly references Council documents in his address. I would have been hard pressed to find a “headline” in this talk. His remarks about the common orientation of priest and people do not come until near the end of the talk, on page 21.
Some excerpts:
“I raise this possibility of looking again at the Constitution and at the reform which followed its promulgation because I do not think that we can honestly read even the first article of Sacrosanctum Concilium today and be content that we have achieved its aims. My brothers and sisters, where are the faithful of whom the Council Fathers spoke? Many of the faithful are now unfaithful: they do not come to the liturgy at all.” ….
“In my 47 years of life as a priest and after more than 36 years of episcopal ministry I can attest that many Catholic communities and individual’”s live and pray the liturgy as reformed following the Council with fervour and joy, deriving from it many, if not all, of the goods that the Council Fathers desired. This is a great fruit of the Council. But from my experience I also know now also through my service as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that there are many distortions of the liturgy throughout the Church today, and there are many situations that could be improved so that the aims of the Council can be achieved.”
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
- I am not arguing. Quite the opposite. I am affirming what Patrick Kennedy writes by providing a male parallel to this invented terminology of recent vintage, “veiling.”
- The modern phenomenon surrounding the term “veiling,” as it is being bandied about by certain Catholics, is not a phenomenon that I consider minuscule.
- It is not an issue of verbiage and semantics.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
why? what impact does it have if someone says veiling vs putting on a manilla, considering they are the same thing?
then what is it?
W
Wannabe_Monk_16
Guest
Just curious, have you ever celebrated Mass ad orientem in the Norvus Ordo??
Thank you and God bless Father!
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Well…as I have said elsewhere, I only use the term ad orientem when I am, literally, facing East. But, yes, I could not begin to tell you how many times I have celebrated Mass ad absidem over the decades. Now that I am retired, the daily Mass chapel altar is free standing but pushed against the wall, if only because it is more convenient. There is no great purpose in facing people who, in fact, are not there.
In the chapel of the papal apartment that is in the Apostolic Palace, the altar does not face the people, for that matter, since it was the pope’s private chapel…although Pope Saint John Paul II always invited priests to concelebrate with him and non-priests to attend his Masses there, when his health permitted.
Frankly, I find the American fascination and actual obsession about this issue nothing short of bizarre. In Europe, there were Masses said facing the people well before Vatican II. Then, too, there were altars and churches and chapels that did not lend themselves to the installation of a new altar after Vatican II – so the adaptations for the reformed liturgy were done as best as possible. Which was in accord with what was called for. And therefore there are in particular places parts of the Mass which do not face the people…even if as much as possible is done facing the people. One does not see, or still less impose, an ideological implication to what is the practical disposition of the space one is using for the celebration of the Mass.
One can look to Saint Peter’s Basilica. There is the altar of the Pope, which faces the people. There is the altar at the Chair, under the Glory of Bernini, which faces the people. There is an altar facing the people in both the canons’ chapel and the adoration chapel. The other altars in the upper basilica, where priests say Mass each morning, are not facing the people. In the crypt, on the other hand, there are a number of altars facing the people because of when those chapels were added to the fabric of the basilica. There are also older altars that do not face the people.
Long ago, I used to celebrate Mass in the vetus ordo. I held the indult in favour of a group who had petitioned for the vetus ordo Mass after the promulgation of* Ecclesia Dei*. When I was relieved of that pastoral responsibility, I handed the indult back and I have only celebrated Mass using the novus ordo in all these intervening years. I was a professor of liturgy and I am most happy and grateful for the incredible gift that was the novus ordo in the wake of the Council and it is exclusively what I use.
P
PatrickKennedy
Guest
And come on lads at the end of the entire debate as long as we have a mass to go to we wouldn’t be mad bothered about the geography of the priest. It’s up to him. Lord save us. Isn’t it a terrible job when every parishioner is an expert.
- Status