That crucifix is not there in the middle of the altar by accident:"Facing toward the East, as we heard, was linked with the "sign of the Son of Man", with the Cross, which announces Our Lord's Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the East was linked with the sign of the cross. Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior "East" of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.H/T New Liturgical Movement
"In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: Conversi ad Dominum, "Turn to the Lord!" In this way we look together at the One whose Death tore the veil of the Temple -- the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in His arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.
"Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord?
"This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history."
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger "The Spirit of the Liturgy"
And for aficionados of Papal vesture, here is a photo which shows one of the Cardinal Deacons and the Holy Father's pontifical dalmatic:
9 comments:
The Cross is not in the middle of the altar by accident.
Bad Grammar as that has almost a double meaning. Better surely would be The Cross is there in the middle of the altar and NOT by accident. (stressing the negative)
Sorry to be pedantic and I often fail that way !!
Father could you do me a favour before I return to the blogosphere next Sunday? There will be a Sung Mass, ad orientem, with Gregorian propers and ordinary (sung by Fr Gerry Byrne's Schola Glasguensis)for the Solemnity of St Andrew in the Glasgow University Memorial Chapel at 6pm on Friday 30th November.
Ta
Paulinus
Josef Cardinal Ratzinger is of course quite right in his book "The Spirit of The Liturgy" to critisise the moving of the crucifix from an altar facing the people, in order to give an uninterrupted view of the priest.
I echo his words when he describes this as "one of the truly absurd phenomenon of recent decades".
I would say the same thing of the table altar which has replaced the high altar in so many churches.
Here too is a mistake which should be corrected.
(It will take time, but it can be done.)
Cromwell, a destructive man, did what he could to destroy altars, statues, stained glass, and even the churches, and made a pretty thorough job of it, but in the fullness of time they were rebuilt.
Pope Benedict has got things moving along the right lines in St. Peter's.
It's a start !
Does that mean it would be ok to celebrate the usus antiquior facing the people so long as there's a Cross on the altar. I hear this is what happened in Rome.
Fr Clifton - you are quite right, of course. Perhaps even better would have been "It is no accident that the cross is there in the middle of the altar." One of the delights of hte blogosphere is that my former teaqchers can still correct my work :-)
Paulinus - will do.
Pilgrim - several altars in Rome are built in such a way that the priest is facing towards the main body of the Church. Mass was always celebrated with the priest facing that way. It is a matter of debate whether this is correctly described as "facing the people" because the point is that he is facing East.
I see that much is being made of the Holy Father wearing a dalmatic (which I believe is the chausable-like garment worn by a deacon, I think) beneath his own chausable. What is the significance of this?
What a joy for a deacon to see the Holy Father wearing a dalmatic underneath his chasuble. Thank you for pointing this out - I never spotted it on EWTN!
The pontifical dalmatic is to be worn by bishops, not just the Holy Father. It symbolizes the completeness of the bishop's Holy Orders and that he has all the rights and powers that he delegates to deacons and priests when he ordains them.
Anon - yes, it applies to all Bishops. But I would not agree that the priests and deacons receive their "powers" as delegated from him. The priest receives the power to consecrate directly from God by virtue of his priestly ordination, not as something delegated by the Bishop. (Although some Bishops seem to think that was what Vatican II taught.)
Post a Comment