C
CatholicSooner
Guest
i fail to see how those quotes justify the priest facing the people
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cardinal Sarah asks priests to start celebrating Mass facing east this Advent
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Paragraph 299 of the missal explicitly allows it. See post no. 20, where I quoted the missal.i fail to see how those quotes justify the priest facing the people
E
edwest2
Guest
That is an important part but we must recognize the spiritual aspects as well.It’s not that the old way is better. It is a question of why are things done a certain way. There is a purpose behind every choice we make. There is a reason facing the people was promoted and there was a reason facing with the people was at one time most common.
What we see and hear directs us. This is why even in secular movies they chose a certain soundtrack. Music or the lack of music or any sound conveys something to us. This is why even in secular movies they chose to use certain colors. Drab colors can convey a sense of bleakness whereas vibrant colors a sense of hope and happiness. This isn’t magic but due to our human nature the dress, actions, orientations, music and art we choose does lead us.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
I can offer the following. Shortly before stepping down as Pope, Pope Benedict spoke about the reason for the confusion twice:Can anybody suggest a book that discusses Vatican 2? And compares what the fathers actually wrote vs what the council implemented? And how it got so far away from what they wrote and what happened?
ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/
ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/
And the following, by Pope Benedict, which mentions “creativity” and “arbitrary deformations”:
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
Ed
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
ThanksParagraph 299 of the missal explicitly allows it. See post no. 20, where I quoted the missal.
I think it is how you read/interpret it. I could see how it means something like this
- The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[116] The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated
"The altar should be build apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily, which is desirable whevere possible, so that mass can be celebrated facing the people
O
OraLabora
Guest
Whichever way one reads it, “so that Mass can be celebrated facing the people” means it’s a licit option.Thanks
I think it is how you read/interpret it. I could see how it means something like this
"The altar should be build apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily, which is desirable whevere possible, so that mass can be celebrated facing the people
P
ProVobis
Guest
And in turn this was commissioned to each country’s bishops and then subsequently to parish liturgical committees. This is why your ordinary Ordinary Form bears little resemblance to most of SC directives.Please note that a direct one-for-one comparison between SC and the Missal is not possible. SC set out the broad guidelines for the renovation of the liturgy. The task was then entrusted to a committee, the “Council for Implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy” under Mgr Annibale Bungini.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Fr. Z showed where the phrase “which is desirable wherever possible” refers to “should be built apart from the wall.”I think it is how you read/interpret it. I could see how it means something like this
"The altar should be build apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily, which is desirable whevere possible, so that mass can be celebrated facing the people
But either way, I’d like to hear the theological reason for doing so. Wasn’t this concern issued prior to the issuance of the Anglican Ordinariate, where cum populo is pretty much a standard?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
After years of teaching Sacrosanctum Concilium:And in turn this was commissioned to each country’s bishops and then subsequently to parish liturgical committees. This is why your ordinary Ordinary Form bears little resemblance to most of SC directives.
After years of being a liturgist:
It is simply not true that the novus ordo bears “little resemblance to the directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium”
Quite the opposite. The reformed liturgy is the fruit of Sacrosanctum Concilium and of the decades long Liturgical Movement, born in Europe, which was the great inspiration behind the entire college of bishops of the Catholic world mandating that the liturgy was to undergo reform and restoration.
And of course we must remember that it did not just concern the Mass. The world’s bishops found, in their judgement, no aspect of the liturgy that was not in need of reform and of restoration. None. Just as they found the state of seminary education in the field woefully inadequate and mandated a complete overhaul. That I ended up where I did was a direct result of that.
I remember some months ago in a thread going point by point by point as to how the mandates of the Council Fathers are fleshed out and then the result is promulgated by the Blessed Paul VI. As I recall, it eventually took three posts…18000 character of analysis and was based on something I had written many many years ago.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
There was no question then of how we were to understand it. It is not as though we were left with texts to interpret by our own devices. “What do YOU think this really means?” Very far from it.Thanks
I think it is how you read/interpret it. I could see how it means something like this
"The altar should be build apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily, which is desirable whevere possible, so that mass can be celebrated facing the people
We saw Blessed Paul VI model, for all of us who were there, what the reform was about. He greatly reformed the practices of the papal liturgy as an example and a model.
He himself said the Mass facing the people. The papal Masses were a model for concelebration at the diocesan level and beyond.
As I have had occasion to say in another thread, as a priest I have celebrated many times ad absidem because the arrangement of some of our chapels and churches did not lend themselves at all to the directive quoted above, about an altar freestanding and separated from the wall…there was not enough space – and besides what existed had historic and artistic significance.
On the other hand, Mass facing the people did not “spring up out of nowhere.” It was part of the liturgical movement that had preceded the Council for decades. The bishops who were the Council Fathers and the theologians who were their periti were quite acquainted with the movement. It was widely experienced and it was embraced.
I have no idea the extent to which these aspects of the liturgical movement were experienced by the American people in the years before the Council. If they did not, it was to their utter impoverishment.
I certainly remember the Benedictines of Collegeville were a very highly regarded part of the Liturgical Movement. It was the occasion of my first acquaintance with them and with their Liturgical Press. We certainly knew who they were and I would have assumed all Americans at the time were looking to them as well for their leadership and scholarship on the liturgical vanguard, just as in Europe there were those centers of liturgical scholarship upon which eyes were focused.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Don Ruggero;14026721 said:Indeed, I happen to know (as you do Father) that the concept was tested in the 1940s at the abbey of Sant’ Anselmo, on the Aventine hill, in Rome. I know the monastery well for having visited on 4 occasions including two 1-week stays, which I will be repeating in November when I will attend a meeting of oblates there.
For those not knowing about Sant’ Anselmo, its the main teaching college of the Benedictines and also the seat of the Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Order, currently Dom Notker Wolfe. The Vatican has long relied on Benedictines on liturgical matters, for example the Vatican has entrusted the preservation, study and restoration of Gregorian chant to the monks of Solesmes, in France.
It is therefore not some obscure concept that was implemented by renegade clergy against the guidelines of Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is a concept tested well before SC was ever drafted and promulgated, and that has long history in the Benedictine world.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
So many comments I read, above all from Americans, are baffling to me.
People will comment on the amount of Latin they think should have been retained based on how they read SC. Yet the Council Fathers in SC are explicit on where the vernacular use is to begin and that the ultimate decision about the amount of vernacular will rest with the bodies to be created that we know today as the bishops’ conferences defused throughout the world…which, of course, are the bodies into which these bishops and their successors would be and would act.
In other words, what began with all the bishops gathered together in Saint Peter’s would progress and the matter would continue to be decided by the world’s bishops but without the need to come back to Rome – they would do it in national gatherings in their own countries. The American bishops who were at the Council are the American bishops who populated the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is not as if the Council Fathers vanished.
The vernacular was so received by the clergy and by the laity that the bishops decided that the use of it would be without delimit. This was done by each of the bishops’ conferences. It is not that some found that, no, limitation of the vernacular was in some way advised. Diffused throughout the world, the almost 3000 bishops came to the same decisions for their respective flocks.
The same was true for the breviary, for that matter. Once it was in the vernacular, the clergy and Religious overwhelmingly turned because – of course – it is easier to pray the Divine Office in one’s maternal tongue that it is in Latin. Initially, there was a desire that the vernacular use should be a limit…a concession. That was set aside.
People will comment on the amount of Latin they think should have been retained based on how they read SC. Yet the Council Fathers in SC are explicit on where the vernacular use is to begin and that the ultimate decision about the amount of vernacular will rest with the bodies to be created that we know today as the bishops’ conferences defused throughout the world…which, of course, are the bodies into which these bishops and their successors would be and would act.
In other words, what began with all the bishops gathered together in Saint Peter’s would progress and the matter would continue to be decided by the world’s bishops but without the need to come back to Rome – they would do it in national gatherings in their own countries. The American bishops who were at the Council are the American bishops who populated the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is not as if the Council Fathers vanished.
The vernacular was so received by the clergy and by the laity that the bishops decided that the use of it would be without delimit. This was done by each of the bishops’ conferences. It is not that some found that, no, limitation of the vernacular was in some way advised. Diffused throughout the world, the almost 3000 bishops came to the same decisions for their respective flocks.
The same was true for the breviary, for that matter. Once it was in the vernacular, the clergy and Religious overwhelmingly turned because – of course – it is easier to pray the Divine Office in one’s maternal tongue that it is in Latin. Initially, there was a desire that the vernacular use should be a limit…a concession. That was set aside.
K
kwitz
Guest
Today I was at the World War II museum in NOLA. In a slide show of photos from the war, was a picture of what I assume was a Catholic priest celebrating Mass. Because I’ve been following this recent request from Cardinal Sarah, it really struck me that the priest in this photo appeared to be facing the congregation. Minimally, the photographer was in front of the priest when he took this shot. Now this priest was in full robes (as compared to some of the more famous photos of priests celebrating Mass in the field) but I couldn’t tell if Mass was in a church or outside of one. I wish it wouldn’t have flashed by in the 5 or so seconds I got to look. I just found it interesting based on this thread.
Kris
Kris
P
ProVobis
Guest
Here are a couple of examples where it appears the versus populum posture was almost inherent in the design, that it was NOT a one-time event.Indeed, I happen to know (as you do Father) that the concept was tested in the 1940s at the abbey of Sant’ Anselmo, on the Aventine hill, in Rome. I know the monastery well for having visited on 4 occasions including two 1-week stays, which I will be repeating in November when I will attend a meeting of oblates there.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Maybe but at some point they needed the authority to test it outside the monastery, no? I still don’t see the theological advancement in all this.It is therefore not some obscure concept that was implemented by renegade clergy against the guidelines of Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is a concept tested well before SC was ever drafted and promulgated, and that has long history in the Benedictine world.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Here’s one from 1930. And this looks like in limited space.Today I was at the World War II museum in NOLA. In a slide show of photos from the war, was a picture of what I assume was a Catholic priest celebrating Mass. Because I’ve been following this recent request from Cardinal Sarah, it really struck me that the priest in this photo appeared to be facing the congregation. Minimally, the photographer was in front of the priest when he took this shot. Now this priest was in full robes (as compared to some of the more famous photos of priests celebrating Mass in the field) but I couldn’t tell if Mass was in a church or outside of one. I wish it wouldn’t have flashed by in the 5 or so seconds I got to look. I just found it interesting based on this thread.
Kris
O
OraLabora
Guest
The authority to carry out the experiments was vested in Sant’ Anselmo from the highest authority, as I understand it. They were tasked with this experiment.Maybe but at some point they needed the authority to test it outside the monastery, no? I still don’t see the theological advancement in all this.
G
Graceful_Lamb
Guest
I have never seen a priest trying to “entertain” the congregation. The priests that I have seen celebrate Mass have been reverent.I have noticed the change in the “atmosphere” so to speak, when the mass is said ad orientem, even with both masses offered according to the Pauline missal.
I have especially noticed that the celebrant usually stops trying to “entertain” the congregation and tends to be more focused on the liturgical action.
F
Fuerza
Guest
So many comments I read, above all from Americans, are baffling to me.
People will comment on the amount of Latin they think should have been retained based on how they read SC. Yet the Council Fathers in SC are explicit on where the vernacular use is to begin and that the ultimate decision about the amount of vernacular will rest with the bodies to be created that we know today as the bishops’ conferences defused throughout the world…which, of course, are the bodies into which these bishops and their successors would be and would act.
In other words, what began with all the bishops gathered together in Saint Peter’s would progress and the matter would continue to be decided by the world’s bishops but without the need to come back to Rome – they would do it in national gatherings in their own countries. The American bishops who were at the Council are the American bishops who populated the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is not as if the Council Fathers vanished.
The vernacular was so received by the clergy and by the laity that the bishops decided that the use of it would be without delimit. This was done by each of the bishops’ conferences. It is not that some found that, no, limitation of the vernacular was in some way advised. Diffused throughout the world, the almost 3000 bishops came to the same decisions for their respective flocks.
Why are they baffling to you? With all due respect Father, not everyone agrees with the way you see things. Some of us would like certain aspects of our tradition restored. Why is that so wrong?
The same was true for the breviary, for that matter. Once it was in the vernacular, the clergy and Religious overwhelmingly turned because – of course – it is easier to pray the Divine Office in one’s maternal tongue that it is in Latin. Initially, there was a desire that the vernacular use should be a limit…a concession. That was set aside.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
couple of thoughts on these pictures.Maybe but at some point they needed the authority to test it outside the monastery, no? I still don’t see the theological advancement in all this.
One, where is the tabernacle? Two, a snap shot in time doesn’t tell the whole story
- Status
- Not open for further replies.