Reason #177408 for Anglicanorum coetibus

Keeping in mind that Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity, here is a photo via NLM which offers one of the reasons why Anglicanorum coetibus was a good idea.

We need an infusion of this sort of blood into our anemic liturgical worship.  This is also why we need Summorum Pontificum.

Not every church or every Mass has to look like this – though that wouldn’t be so bad, given many of the alternatives we have seen over the last few decades – but our experience of this sort of liturgical worship can serve to influence overall our ars celebrandi and therefore deepen a sense of true active participation in sacred action.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Reason #177408 for Anglicanorum coetibus

  1. Pachomius says:

    Fr.,

    That church is indeed beautiful, but I suspect one of the reasons it survived the 1960s with its rood screen in tact (though for a long time unpainted), and without a low altar is that this church is also tiny.

    And while it may surprise some, its usual mass is the Ordinary Form, with the priest facing ad orientem and a plainchant Ordinary, so it’s by no means a give-me-TLM-or-give-me-death kind of place, either.

  2. teaguytom says:

    One reason we need A.C. is a revival or the beautiful rood screens. I’ve never understood why they were banished in Catholicism by Trent. They only survived in the West because of the Anglicans. I’m presuming that they were abolished as a concession to the protestants.

  3. it’s by no means a give-me-TLM-or-give-me-death kind of place, either.

    Certainly looks Novus Ordo–bare altar, no altar missal, etc.

  4. “And while it may surprise some, its usual mass is the Ordinary Form, with the priest facing ad orientem and a plainchant Ordinary, so it’s by no means a give-me-TLM-or-give-me-death kind of place, either.”

    The Ordinary form celebrated ad orientem with plainchant ordinary at an altar that looks like an altar and a sanctuary clearly set apart as holy is a huge step up from what we have in most parishes!

  5. Pachomius says:

    Henry Edwards, I hadn’t spotted that there’s no Missal on the altar. Suffice to say that all the times I’ve been there for the Ordinary Form, there has been a Missal on a brass, Gothic stand on the altar. I simply cannot fathom what your comment about the altar being “bare” refers to, and seems to me to be nothing more than an excuse for a cheap shot at the OF.

    Catholicofthule: Sadly, this is true. But we can live in hope that more churches will adopt this style. As I said, this one was fortunate in that it didn’t have the sanctuary altered from what I gather.

  6. Pachomius says:

    teaguytom: I think actually they were got rid of because in some places they were actually iconostases, and in others full-blown stone walls separating the laity from the priest, so the two were effectively in different rooms (google York Minster for an idea of the sort of thing I mean).

  7. wchoag says:

    I do not recognise this chapel, but I would wager that it is not more than 20 years old.

  8. Martial Artist says:

    Not every church or every Mass has to look like this … but our experience of this sort of liturgical worship can serve to influence overall our ars celebrandi and therefore deepen a sense of true active participation in sacred action.

    AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
    Keith Töpfer

  9. PostCatholic says:

    Ah! That picture lets me ask an art and architecture question that has bothered me for a little time. I once came upon in my reading a definition for the screens on either side of that altar (Screen, curtain, cloth barrier–in this photo they are golden, and you see them protruding from the rear wall beside the reredos. They are topped with a decorative finial that seems to be some kind of carytid. An angel on each corner? Representations of the?). I’ve both forgotten the name of the screen and its allegorical meaning.

    Perhaps this erudite crowd can teach me the name of these fixtures and explain their meaning and purpose, and the reason for the rarity of installation in post-Conciliar liturgical architecture. I have seen it in my travels both in churches and museums, and it seems to me it’s usually associated with gothic architecture.

    I hope that this is not too off-topic to ask this. Forgive me if it is.

  10. PostCatholic says:

    Meant to ask, “Representations of the evangelists?”

  11. PostCatholic says:

    Also, couldn’t the absence of cards and a missal indicate another type of liturgy occurring? Recitation of the office, perhaps?

  12. Pachomius: “I simply cannot fathom what your comment about the altar being “bare” refers to, and seems to me to be nothing more than an excuse for a cheap shot at the OF.”

    Sorry I gave the wrong impression. I attend the OF equally often (and with equal devotion to) as I attend the EF. While admittedly being partial to the EF, no such OF as that pictured ever being available to me locally.

    By “bare altar” I referred merely to the fact that no altar missal, altar cards, burse, veiled chalice are visible upon it. Which is why it was obvious at a glance that it was an OF, probably during the Credo.

  13. This looks like St. Birinus, Dorchester, to me; what a stunning church it is too.

  14. Centristian says:

    @PostCatholic:

    “Ah! That picture lets me ask an art and architecture question that has bothered me for a little time. I once came upon in my reading a definition for the screens on either side of that altar (Screen, curtain, cloth barrier–in this photo they are golden, and you see them protruding from the rear wall beside the reredos. They are topped with a decorative finial that seems to be some kind of carytid. An angel on each corner? Representations of the?). I’ve both forgotten the name of the screen and its allegorical meaning.”

    The posts, themselves, are called “riddel posts”. The angels at the top are more than likely just decorative candle holders, as the very purpose of the posts is to hold the “riddel candles”, which are lit at the beginning of the Canon and snuffed at the Last Ablution. If there is a name for the curtains, themselves, that hang between the reredos and the riddels, I don’t know it.

  15. Centristian says:

    “Also, couldn’t the absence of cards and a missal indicate another type of liturgy occurring? Recitation of the office, perhaps?”

    Perhaps. Although the priest and deacons are vested for solemn Mass, I also notice that the four smaller candles are lit, and so I wonder if an office did not begin at the end of Mass.

  16. Pachomius says:

    HenryEdwards: Sorry to have accused you in haste. I see what you mean about the altar being bare now, although from the occasions when I’ve been there, I seem to recall the altar having everything set up on it at the start of the Mass. From the presence of what looks like four clergymen on the altar, all in birettas, I’d guess it was an EF event, but I’m not sure.

    Catholic with Attitude: It is indeed.

  17. John Nolan says:

    What’s this to do with Anglicanorum Coetibus? It’s a Catholic church (St Birinus, Dorchester-on Thames, Oxon) and always has been. The polychrome rood screen is indeed magnificent, and I have seen an occasional one in an an Anglican church, but they tend to be reticent about it, e.g. a Comper screen with a proper rood but left in plain wood, or a screen without a rood scene at all.

    Given the style of this (very small) church the screen is entirely appropriate, and note the white houseling cloths which are used when the faithful kneel to receive Holy Communion. I was last there for a Solemn High Mass on Ascension Thursday (EF) and although the sanctuary was a bit crowded it would have been the same in a lot of parish churches in the Middle Ages.

  18. John Nolan says:

    Rood screens were not abolished by the Council of Trent; it was just that the 16th century architectural style favoured the open style which also harmonized with the Tridentine ideal that the words and actions of the Mass should be accessible to all the faithful.

  19. edm says:

    The curtain behind an altar is a DOSSAL CURTAIN and the curtains at the sides are RIDDEL CURTAINS.

  20. JPJT says:

    As MC of the Mass I can tell you it was most certainly OF. It was the First Solemn Mass of Fr David Elliott, a newly ordained priest of the Ordinariate of OLW. More photographs may be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ukordinariate/sets/72157626936608921/

    J

  21. Dr. Eric says:

    BRING

    BACK

    THE

    ROOD

    SCREEN!!!

  22. PostCatholic says:

    Thank you folks very much for the instruction. I have thumbed through Joseph Hardon’s dictionary more than once in search of “riddel posts” and “dossal curtains,” but without knowing the terms, that’s a tough exercise.

  23. jfm says:

    Has anyone been to an Anglican rite liturgy in a personal ordinariate church? I haven’t been — is it wonderful? I am a sucker for high church Anglican liturgies and the gorgeous language of older versions of the Book of Common Prayer. Will there be a personal ordinariate church in the NYC area anytime soon?

  24. Maltese says:

    Beautiful Rood Screen!

  25. dspecht says:

    Yes, like John Nolan saked, what has this to do with Anglic. Coe.?????