Cardinal Sarah asks priests to start celebrating Mass facing east this Advent

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraLabora said:
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.
Click to expand...
And the theological reason for doing this experiment was what?
 
Graceful_Lamb said:
I have never seen a priest trying to “entertain” the congregation. The priests that I have seen celebrate Mass have been reverent.
Click to expand...
It all depends on your perspective. I’ve seen a reverent and warm liturgy at a Lutheran church.
 
CatholicSooner said:
i fail to see how those quotes justify the priest facing the people
Click to expand...
They don’t. And furthermore the English “active participation” doesn’t distinguish between the Latin “participatio actuosa” and “participatio activa” which mean two different things. Translation failures are more reasons against using the vernacular.
 
OraLabora said:
What was the compass direction of the altar?
Click to expand...
For all I know the picture may have been taken in the middle of the ocean on board a ship which was moving in a circle. 🙂

The point is that it’s versus populum and on a free standing altar.
 
ProVobis said:
For all I know the picture may have been taken in the middle of the ocean on board a ship which was moving in a circle. 🙂

The point is that it’s versus populum and on a free standing altar.
Click to expand...
Which did happen before Vatican II in many places. Such as at St Peter’s in the Vatican 😉
 
ProVobis said:
They don’t. (1) And furthermore the English “active participation” doesn’t distinguish between the Latin “participatio actuosa” and “participatio activa” which mean two different things. (2) Translation failures are more reasons against using the vernacular.
Click to expand...
(1) The Council Fathers themselves indicate what they include in participatio actuoso:
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes…
Thus, the liturgical dance that is done in inculturated liturgies by Africans, at which I have myself presided, fit the very definition of participatio actuoso.

(2) Then you find yourself with a conclusion contrary to the Popes as well as the Bishops of the world since their determination has been that shortcomings of translation are to be either accepted or overcome since worship in the vernacular is a much greater value.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
(1) The Council Fathers themselves indicate what they include in participatio actuoso:
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes…
Thus, the liturgical dance that is done in inculturated liturgies by Africans, at which I have myself presided, fit the very definition of participatio actuoso.

(2) Then you find yourself with a conclusion contrary to the Popes as well as the Bishops of the world since their determination has been that shortcomings of translation are to be either accepted or overcome since worship in the vernacular is a much greater value.
Click to expand...
Father,
The Ge’ez or Ethiopic expression of the Alexandrian Rite includes liturgical dancing that I would describe more as a rhythmic sway than “dancing” (at least as dancing is typically understood in a Western context). This venerable tradition certainly indicates to me that “liturgical dancing” is not intrinsically alien to Christian worship…though I am certainly no fan of the types of “liturgical dancing” I have seen in European / North American circles. Do you happen to know if African bishops turned to the Ethiopian traditions when evaluating ways to adopt the liturgy to an African cultural context? It seems to me that Ethiopian Orthodoxy / Catholicism, as the only expression of Sub-Saharan Christianity that predates European colonialism, would have been a more appropriate “template” than the very European / Western Roman Rite. 🤷
 
OraLabora said:
Which did happen before Vatican II in many places. Such as at St Peter’s in the Vatican 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, but if we’re talking about norms and changing norms, shouldn’t we be asking about why we spent so much money in doing so, and for what theological benefit?
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, but if we’re talking about norms and changing norms, shouldn’t we be asking about why we spent so much money in doing so, and for what theological benefit?
Click to expand...
Yes, I shudder to think how many vast fortunes were spent to rip out high altars and altar rails across North America (Father seemed to suggest earlier this practice of “wreckovation” was less common in Europe). Our cathedral did rip out the high altar and replace it with the cathedra, but we still have an altar rail- and it’s used at all (Novus Ordo) masses… Sure makes communion go a LOT faster with almost no EMHCs.
 
I’m looking at an old 1935 ceremonial that I have. It gives one possible configuration of the altar where the altar is turned toward the choir, with the altar between the nave and the choir.

In this configuration, Mass would have been versus populum for the people. I remind: in 1935. It would be the opposite for the choir, they would be facing the same direction as the priest. It also gives opposite arrangement of the altar in the same position, but oriented in the other direction. Thus the celebrant would be facing the same direction as the people.

It occurs to me reading this, that the history of versus populum predates the Council by quite some years and it’s wrong to suggest that ad orientem (or absidem) is appropriate for all times, and all places.

And it’s wrong to suggest it is some kind of modernist invention.
 
OraLabora said:
I’m looking at an old 1935 ceremonial that I have. It gives one possible configuration of the altar where the altar is turned toward the choir, with the altar between the nave and the choir.

In this configuration, Mass would have been versus populum for the people. I remind: in 1935. It would be the opposite for the choir, they would be facing the same direction as the priest. It also gives opposite arrangement of the altar in the same position, but oriented in the other direction. Thus the celebrant would be facing the same direction as the people.

It occurs to me reading this, that the history of versus populum predates the Council by quite some years and it’s wrong to suggest that ad orientem (or absidem) is appropriate for all times, and all places.

And it’s wrong to suggest it is some kind of modernist invention.
Click to expand...
Of course. But historically it was still the norm, even if not universally so… Whether one was Latin, Byzantine, Syriac, Coptic or otherwise.
 
Padres1969 said:
It’s likely all a moot point however as most churches aren’t going to change anything unless it became a mandate.
Click to expand...
I know of a few parishes that have returned to a communion rail and the priest facing away from the people (A.O.) There is one ‘Church’, so to speak; the rest of us are parishes of that one Church.
Don_Ruggero said:
As a European, I find some of the comments very enigmatic. I’ve said Mass over the years in the United States and in Canada and it is true there is a decidedly non-European mindset there…but still.

I couldn’t even begin to tell you how many times over the decades I have offered Mass ad absidem. It is not an extraordinary thing at all for us. As such, we don’t invest in it any ideological significance.

Many chapels and churches would not, structurally, accommodate an altar facing the people. There wasn’t enough room and we were certainly not going to do elaborate modifications to historically significant centuries old buildings when the directives were principally for structures that would be erected from the point of the decree forward. In the same way, we did not take out communion rails…we just stopped using them.

I have never experienced any real distinction concerning perceptions in the Masses I have said facing one direction as opposed to another – neither on my part or on the part of the congregation. It is only a fraction of the total time of the Mass that I am turned ad absidem anyway. Certainly there was not a sense that the direction the priest faces for those moments has any sort of significance as far as interpreting (or expressing) his ideology. It’s purely practical.

Most Masses I celebrate since retiring are ad absidem because the chapel doesn’t presume any congregation will be present.

The papal chapel in the apostolic palace was the same way…the altar was (and is) ad absidem although Pope Saint John Paul II always invited a certain number of people to his daily Mass until the end approached. (Pope Francis on the other hand celebrates his daily Mass in the chapel of the Casa Santa Marta.)

.
Click to expand...
Hello,
I’m curious as to your credentials; you’ve mentioned a few times that you are a priest, retired. Were you in Europe? Is your actual name Don Ruggero? Where did you have a parish?

I’d just like to know for sure that someone holding himself up as a priest, is actually a priest in good standing with the Church. Thanks. I do appreciate your contributions.
 
ccmcmg said:
I know of a few parishes that have returned to a communion rail and the priest facing away from the people (A.O.) There is one ‘Church’, so to speak; the rest of us are parishes of that one Church.

Hello,
I’m curious as to your credentials; you’ve mentioned a few times that you are a priest, retired. Were you in Europe? Is your actual name Don Ruggero? Where did you have a parish?

I’d just like to know for sure that someone holding himself up as a priest, is actually a priest in good standing with the Church. Thanks. I do appreciate your contributions.
Click to expand...
Actually many parishes refer to themselves as churches of the Catholic Church, but that’s neither here nor there
 
OraLabora said:
It occurs to me reading this, that the history of versus populum predates the Council by quite some years and it’s wrong to suggest that ad orientem (or absidem) is appropriate for all times, and all places.
Click to expand...
The Cardinal asks that it (cum populo) be done where possible. I don’t read this as advocating “wreckovation” in order to achieve that objective. In fact, the very same altar can be used with minimal costs. If there is any sort of resistance to it, and I’m almost sure there will be some, simply don’t do it.
 
OraLabora said:
I’m looking at an old 1935 ceremonial that I have. It gives one possible configuration of the altar where the altar is turned toward the choir, with the altar between the nave and the choir.

In this configuration, Mass would have been versus populum for the people. I remind: in 1935. It would be the opposite for the choir, they would be facing the same direction as the priest. It also gives opposite arrangement of the altar in the same position, but oriented in the other direction. Thus the celebrant would be facing the same direction as the people.

It occurs to me reading this, that the history of versus populum predates the Council by quite some years and it’s wrong to suggest that ad orientem (or absidem) is appropriate for all times, and all places.

And it’s wrong to suggest it is some kind of modernist invention.
Click to expand...
You are quite correct.

The rite, in fact, did not forbid the vetus ordo Mass versus populum and there were places where it was done. And, as you discovered, we had directions on how to do it. They were not the norm but they were certainly existing. The liturgical movement saw them as having value.
 
twf said:
Yes, I shudder to think how many vast fortunes were spent to rip out high altars and altar rails across North America (Father seemed to suggest earlier this practice of “wreckovation” was less common in Europe). Our cathedral did rip out the high altar and replace it with the cathedra, but we still have an altar rail- and it’s used at all (Novus Ordo) masses… Sure makes communion go a LOT faster with almost no EMHCs.
Click to expand...
Words like “wreckovation” have no meaning to me.

Much of what we were dealing with were structures of historic and artistic merit. Those structures were simply altered, if possible, to accommodate the reformed liturgy. Or not, if they could not be.

As I have written here before, I could not begin to tell you how many times I have celebrated Mass not facing the people and at an altar that predated the last Council.

There are chapels where an adaptation made no sense…such as with cloistered Religious. If they are in their choir chapel at the side of the sanctuary looking on toward the sanctuary as they sit in their classic choir stalls, which are arranged antiphonally (they are facing each other), then they would be looking at me from the side whether I am celebrating ad absidem or I am turned toward the nave. Externs (lay people from outside) are in the nave but they are accommodated there as guests…they are not there, properly, as the place where their spiritual care depends.

If you orient me as the celebrant so that I am facing the nuns facing the choir chapel (or actually facing their abbess since only she and I would be looking straight at each other) the actual sanctuary of the chapel would then be turned on its side and the nuns from their choir stalls would still be looking at me side ways. That would be disorienting in every sense of the word…for the entire sanctuary as well as its furnishings, for the celebrant, for the nuns and for the externs. Everything was just left as it was.

There are places where the sanctuary was simply too small to accommodate another altar. Where it could be done, it was. Sometimes with less than felicitous results. Or you simply adapted what could be reasonably adapted and retained what you had.

Newer structures is another matter in Europe and those can have quite distinct contemporary elements…much more so and more stylized than what I saw in the United States.

These were seen as much more practical determinations than ideologically driven.

I think there is truth in a maxim told me by an American…maybe as far back as in the 1970s…“If a directive did not say to keep something, Americans changed it. If a directive did not say to change something, Europeans kept it.” I would largely agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top