Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Sacramentum Caritatis
As announced yesterday, the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist will be published in Rome next Tuesday. I only hope it isn`t too disappointing. Let`s hope and pray that it reflects something of the opinions expressed by the Pope when he was a cardinal, regarding the liturgy, especially the crucial matter of the ad orientem position for the celebration of Mass. The best scenario will be for the long-awaited Motu Proprio on the traditional Mass to be published with it. If this is the case there will be a `private` or by if it is as good as we hope, a public celebration, of the 1962 missal at St Mary`s, next Tuesday night followed by the Te Deum and champagne!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
As a Catholic convert unfamiliar with the pre-Vatican II mass, I was surprised to learn that the "ad orientum" was never officially discarded. This I learned from Raymond Arroyo's biography of Mother Angelica. At one point she was forbidden to televise any ad orientum mass by her local Bishop and that prohibition still stands. His previous order, banning any ad orientum mass anywhere in his diocese was found by Rome to be invalid, but in the area of media he did have the authority to make that kind of rule. That is why you will never see a mass televised from the Shrine, only the benediction, because all masses there are celebrated ad orientum. The mass we see on EWTN is from the chapel.
Would that be the same champagne that Pat MacG had some months ago ready for the announcement due in October/November/December, et seq? It may need to be kept for a little longer, I fear.
As for the priest facing East (or back to the people)I don't really think it as important as the restoration, without restriction, of the TLM itself. After all, Popes have said the TLM facing the people for long enough in St Peter's.
Les, I don`t have EWTN any more but I remember the Masses from the chapel. Let`s hope this exhortation on Tuesday will make ad orientem respectable and even recommend it.
SB, although the freedom for the TLM is very important I think that for the short-term the introduction of the ad orientem position into the Novus ordo will have a wider impact, as a step along the way. It would be unrealistic to impose the TLM on a Novus ordo congregation: they would find it too strange. Thus we need to advance step-by step. The post synodal exhortation is defintely coming out on Tuesday. It will be incredible if it did not contain some of the liturgical insights of the pope`s previous writings.
As for the facing the people TLM of st Peter`s basilica, it is worth remembering that Popes only used to celebrate at that altar a few times a year and then no-one in the nave could see what was going on because of the candlesticks and crucifix.
With respect, Fr Brown, but I don't recall saying the TLM should be imposed on anyone! And there are other churches I have visited where the view has been as restricted as in St Peter's (but without the benefit of the Pope'soccasiional, presence).
Dear SB, well the indult will not reach as many people as introducing ad orientem to the Novus Ordo and while I am desperate for the indult it is also important that we can celebrate the NO in a more traditional way and so I would say that such a `reform of the reform` is as important as freedom for the TLM.
Can I repeat that I did not advocate the 'imposition' of the tLM on anyone? Unlike the 20th Century Reformers who imposed the Novus Ordo on us all in the 1970s and who have continued to do so. That said. of course you may be right in that the orientation of the priest may have a wider impact in the short term. I do have my doubts thought that something as defective as the NO can be reformed.
Sb, I am aware that you said you don`t want to impose the TLM. Glad you agree that the introduction of an ad orientem position would have a greater impact on the Church overall.
'May' have a greater impact, not 'would' have!
Forgive my ignorance Father, but I am unclear whether there was any direct top-down directive from the Vatican at the time of the introduction of the NO that the TLM was not to be celebrated, or was it a case of the Bishops exercising their diocesan authority. It seems that previous limited indults were directed to the bishops to allow the TLM based on demand from the parish level. What I mean is that is seems sometimes, by what I have read about the matter that this was again a case of mid-level management, so to speak, creating a sense that a rule had come down from the top when in reality that was not the case.
This is not to cast aspersions on any Bishops, but I am curious about the manner in which events transpired.
Post a Comment