A FLOWER STAND WEARS THE VESTMENTS WHILE FATHER 'NARRATES' THE EUCHARIST

To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Or you can PM me on Messenger. Scroll down for other comments. I apologise for the tiny font in places, my laptop was in a vile mood tonight.



It was bizarre. 

Yesterday morning at the First Holy Communion Mass on the Feast of Christ the King, it was probably not the little girls bedecked becomingly as brides of Christ, but rather an extremely beauteous chasuble and cope, that was the cynosure of all eyes.

Only these sacred vestments were not worn by Father. They were draped around a flower stand in the sanctuary. 

By comparison, Father's post-Vat II vestments looked mundane. The old chasuble, its cope lovingly and meticulously hand-embroidered by nuns (probably in the convent next door now inhabited by a 2nd-hand car salesman), is a legacy of the 50s, that serene period of NZ Church history when new churches were built up and down the country - and not too bad aesthetically, at that - our church among them. 

"Man's nature is such that he needs external helps to assist him in fixing his attention on sacred things. we are all impressed to a remarkable degree by 'pomp and circumstance'.  A king on his throne, clad in his royal robes, holding his scepter and wearing his jeweled crown, is an imposing sight; all these accessories indicate his dignity and help us to realize his greatness. The same king without these trappings of royalty would possibly be a very insignificant object" - The Externals of the Catholic Church, John F Sullivan. 

Precisely. As sacramentals, "vestments are the uniform of the priest when he is exercising the functions of his ministry and using the sacred power he received at his ordination" - http://www.awakentoprayer.org/vestments.htm

More importantly, the chasuble and cope are sacramentals, blessed incidentally in being worn by a priest consecrated as an alter Christus to the service of God, and ceremoniously by the Church to increase devotion in those who see them and those who use them. A priest wears vestments, not  civvies, to show that he is acting not on his own authority but Christ's, in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). 

The chasuble represents the yoke of Christ, the joys and sorrows of his people, which the priest bears with them and for them. 

Above all, it represents charity, as put on over all the priest's clothing, just as we are to put on charity (love of God) over all the other virtues. Even, believe it or not, humility! Certainly well above the false humility touted everywhere in NZ's Church of Nice, in kowtowing to Maori for example, by using Te Reo in the Mass when there are next-to no Maori in the congregation. That's not humility, that's condescension.  

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (3rd ed., 2001) - the guidebook to the Novus Ordo Mass  - states that “the character and beauty of the (church) and all its furnishings should foster devotion and show forth the holiness of the mysteries celebrated there” (n. 294). This extends to the materials used: “In selecting elements for church appointments, there should be a concern for the genuineness of things [rerum veritas] and a striving for that which will be for the instruction of the faithful and the dignity of the entire sacred place.

'Church architecture ... should highlight the unity of the furnishings of the sanctuary, such as the altar, the crucifix, the tabernacle, the ambo, and the celebrant’s chair … Special respect and care must also be given to the vestments, the furnishings, and the sacred vessels, so that by their harmonious and orderly arrangement they will foster awe for the mystery of God, manifest the unity of the faith, and strengthen devotion. [v] https://onepeterfive.com/catholic-church-look-like/

In our church, as in most Novus Ordo churches, the 'unity of the sanctuary' is expressed by the tabernacle off-side, a table in the middle, a crucifix well behind - and yesterday, by two sets of vestments, one on Father and the other on a flower stand, somewhere between crucifix and tabernacle. 

In my own parish church, where I made my First Holy Communion and where I was married, the cumulative effect of disorientation was to make me feel alienated - like a DP.  I walked out before the Gospel to drive for an hour (rather faster than I should) to St Columba's Ashhurst, arriving just in time for the Rosary that is recited before the indult Latin Mass at 12 midday.  And oh, the relief.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in Sacramentum Caritatis, states: "The liturgical vestments, the furnishings and the sacred space … The profound connection between beauty and the liturgy should make us attentive to every work of art placed at the service of the celebration.

"Liturgy is inherently linked to beauty because liturgy is (1) the radiant expression of Christ, who is the source and summit of all beauty; and (2) the sacramental re-presentation of the most beautiful event, that of Christ’s gift of self in His Paschal Mystery, thereby transforming the dark mystery of death into the radiant light of the resurrection by His love:

§  “Here the splendour of God’s glory surpasses all worldly beauty. The truest beauty is the love of God, who definitively revealed himself to us in the paschal mystery” (35).

As a result, the liturgical action must reflect its innate splendour: “Everything related to the Eucharist should be marked by beauty” (41). This is no mere aestheticism or decoration but rather

§  “the concrete way in which the truth of God’s love in Christ encounters us, attracts us and delights us, enabling us to emerge from ourselves and drawing us towards our true vocation, which is love” (35).

And yet our most beautiful, most 'royal' vestments are relegated to the sacristy cupboard, or even worse, pressed into service as mere décor, useful for hiding a plain flower stand, making it 'special'. 



In the same vein, at Mass the preceding Sunday Father was at pains to impress on the congregation the idea that all he does at the Consecration is "narrate".  As if it's just a matter of saying certain words in a certain order, like a 'Eucharistic Minister' does in a 'paraliturgy' -  so really, why shouldn't anyone be able to 'narrate' the Consecration?

Now, where does that idea - which stupefied one of his fellow priests, when informed of it - come from? Not from Father, I'll be bound. No, it sounds like it's come from someone in the NZ hierarchy with more than usual Protestant leanings and is calculated, like dumbed-down vestments, to downplay and diminish Sacred Orders and lead us on to - wait for it - the new globalist Church World Church as promoted by the Amazon Synod, facilitated by its married priests and female deacons. 

It's extremely serious in that it raises the question of whether, if Father really means that all he's doing is 'narrating' he intends actually to confect the Eucharist, which is what he's supposed to be doing, and most importantly, supposed to be intending to do - because without this 'right intention', of confecting the Eucharist, there is no Sacrament. The bread remains bread. The wine remains wine. The priest's intention must be to do what the Church requires him to do: consecrate the bread and wine.

If Father intends just to 'narrate' rather than confect the Eucharist, then his people are being fed bread and wine instead of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It's highly unlikely that he doesn't intend to confect the Eucharist, but the statement, "I just narrate" coming from certain other priests would be highly alarming, and congregants might be justified in concluding that they've been horribly and cruelly swindled.

In the world of Novusordism we should recall the words of the pagan Aristotle concerning "the good, the true and the beautiful”: they coinhere. You can’t have truth and goodness without beauty. Novusordoists are in danger of sleepwalking towards a Church which having lost beauty will lose goodness and truth too.

Then there's my favorite quote from schooldays, from John Keats:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

In other words, all we need to know is Christ, and Him crucified.

Bob Gill says:

Good to highlight priest Mass tampering as it’s something that happens so often. Getting the congregation to join hands during the Our Father; mixing blessings while distributing Communion, are examples. Then we have others there giving school presentations during a Mass –instead of after Mass; excessive hugging and shaking of hands by a bunch of lay ministers just before they distribute Communion, etc. It’s a free-for-all most of the time these days.


Philippa O'Neill says:


Oh my, check this out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GvNQMdO648



Linda Clarke says:

In reference to your comment that no one would complain of the NO if done according to the book: you did mention SSPX diehards ... .
I've read a lot in recent weeks on how Mass WAS and how Pope Pius V decreed it was never to be changed and also how rich and unchanging the Latin is ...  and then I experienced the whole atmosphere for myself … I think people wouldn't complain about the NO if done according to the book only if they didn't know the Latin Mass - didn't know the reverence, the sacrificial element.

I've become quite open to thinking that Vat II should never have altered the Mass. It has the possibility of being acceptable to Protestants etc, etc.   So I might be a gone coon where that is concerned … The NO is sooooo not like the Latin Mass, although it's all I knew. As you say - did we need it changed?!   I think not.....I don't think it was God's will.   I find the NO hard to accept now.

Jeanette Hancock says:

Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail. Vat II and it's decision is legit. Sure, there are plenty of parishes that don't quite operate under the intended spirit of the Council, but that's a different problem.

If you read the Vat II documents, they are beautiful, and they're trying to compel a people to a closer relationship with Christ and a stronger understanding of what the Mass is.

The problem isn't so much the style of the Mass, it's the communities we're living in, and the failures of families, schools and clergy to make sure that the Faithful are properly catechised.

I say: 

Yes, Vat II and its decision is legit. But not infallible: it was only a pastoral council. "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966.

Yes, I've read the Vat II documents. Yes, they sound beautiful. But you could drive a truck through the loopholes.
The problem is that the style of the Mass actually reflects the communities we're living in and is a major driver in ensuring the failure of families, schools and clergy to catechize the Faithful properly.

I'm ashamed to say I have only just now got around to finishing the Ottaviani Intervention which I should think most of our readers will be familiar with. Otherwise titled A Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass, it's a study published in 1969 by twelve Catholic theologians who worked under the direction of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. 

Please don't rear up on your hind legs at the mention of Lefebvre, celebrated for founding the Society of St Pius X. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them" (Mt 7:15-16). Compare the fruits of the  SSPX and its Traditional Latin Mass (Usus Antiquior) with the fruits of the Novus Ordo. 

The Ottaviani Intervention stated that:"It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative."

I rest my case (in the meantime).