Time for another incomprehensible mashup.
First things first. I certainly agree with the bulk of the approach expounded here. My only reason for pause is the authoritarian tone of 'abolished' and 'destroyed'. This is the very attitude and approach which has wreaked such havoc over the last fifty years! I always prefer 'made optional', 'de-emphasized', and 're-appropriated as', for example. Thus, on my view, Benediction would be possible but invariably rare. In all events, the two utterly divergent streams of the Papal high courtesy, on the one hand, and of heart-felt Franciscan enthusiasm, on the other, must be kept under tight control.
On another side of things, beware iconoclasts of a completely other stripe: Rather, then, than temple, priest and sacrifice being abolished, it is invested with new meaning and expression. The continuity between the New Testament and the post-New Testament Church is a profound witness to this - something which traditional evangelical commentary has been unwilling to grasp. What we desire:
The complexio oppositorum demands an ever-present, careful balance:
It must never be either/or but always both, simultaneously.
Hence, to return to the beginning. Reservation is not commanded by Christ: but, practically speaking, the diaconal ministers may need quick access to it, for communion of the sick. Also, old-fangled or new, GIRM has been more of a hindrance than a help. If we want a single altar, a free-standing altar, no gradines, etc., then something along these lines might fit the bill:
Thank you for the tip! The information has been passed on.
ReplyDelete