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.
I havent read through the whole thread but just my :twocents:
It will be awkward in some churches that are actually facing north and south.

In my parish the priest faces the congregation and is facing east already.
 
I am more of a “Go West young man” sort of personality.

Alas, I have reached the point where if I go any further west, I will end up in the Far East.
 
This is very good news! Ad orientem is much better than versus populum. I hope that a reform of the Novus Ordo comes quickly.
 
I’ll go along with whatever my bishop recommends, but I really don’t see why ad orientem is the better option. I understand the ancient practise of worshiping God in the east, and so we and the priest turn as one to face God. But it seems to me that since the priest is acting as Christ he should be facing the people, as Jesus would have around the table at the last supper. At the moment of consecration, the priest raises the bread and wine and says “this is my body…this is my blood” – to whom? Surely he, as Christ, should be saying it to the people, not to God?
 
seagal said:
I’ll go along with whatever my bishop recommends, but I really don’t see why ad orientem is the better option. I understand the ancient practise of worshiping God in the east, and so we and the priest turn as one to face God. But it seems to me that since the priest is acting as Christ he should be facing the people, as Jesus would have around the table at the last supper. At the moment of consecration, the priest raises the bread and wine and says “this is my body…this is my blood” – to whom? Surely he, as Christ, should be saying it to the people?
Click to expand...
Jesus wasn’t facing the people at the Last Supper. The Apostles were facing the same direction as Our Lord when at the Last Supper, that was the practice of those times. Over time, this developed into the ad orientem practice we have today in which the faithful and priest face the same direction, the faithful are just sitting farther away.

When the priest consecrates the bread and wine, he isn’t doing it for the people. Acting as Christ, He turns to God and offers the Sacrifice to Him on our behalf, he isn’t offering it to the people. What’s done for the people is the elevation so that they can see and adore the Host & Chalice. In the Traditional Latin Mass, we don’t even hear the Consecration.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
Jesus wasn’t facing the people at the Last Supper. The Apostles were facing the same direction as Our Lord when at the Last Supper, that was the practice of those times. Over time, this developed into the ad orientem practice we have today in which the faithful and priest face the same direction, the faithful are just sitting farther away.

When the priest consecrates the bread and wine, he isn’t doing it for the people. Acting as Christ, He turns to God and offers the Sacrifice to Him on our behalf, he isn’t offering it to the people. What’s done for the people is the elevation so that they can see and adore the Host & Chalice. In the Traditional Latin Mass, we don’t even hear the Consecration.
Click to expand...
The theology of sign and sacrament, as it relates to Eucharist, has no significance apart from the people…they are ordered precisely to a soteriological purpose.

The very action of the institution narrative makes it quite clear: “he said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to his disciples saying: ‘Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body, which will be given up for you.’”

The words would be nonsensical apart from human beings who will, in fact, take and eat as well as take and drink of the elements that have become Eucharist.

And, the rubrics of the anaphora after the reform and restoration of the liturgy are their own declaration:

89. In the formulas that follow, the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words require.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
The theology of sign and sacrament, as it relates to Eucharist, has no significance apart from the people…they are ordered precisely to a soteriological purpose.

The very action of the institution narrative makes it quite clear: “he said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to his disciples saying: ‘Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body, which will be given up for you.’”

The words would be nonsensical apart from human beings who will, in fact, take and eat as well as take and drink of the elements that have become Eucharist.

And, the rubrics of the anaphora after the reform and restoration of the liturgy are their own declaration:

89. In the formulas that follow, the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words require.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that such words need to be heard by the faithful even if they are mentioned. If they did, then the Traditional Latin Mass would not have a silent Canon. It is better if such words are pronounced silently.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight Father. It’s very interesting to me that the priest’s orientation isn’t such a “big deal” in Europe. I used the term “wreckovation” because from a strictly architectural perspective I consider it tragic that beautiful high altars, built by the blood and sweat of our forefathers, were torn out in so many North American churches, rather than simply adding a second altar. That being said, some churches did do the latter. There’s a lovely little local parish church, Sts Peter and Paul, where the gorgeous high altar was preserved, and continues to host the tabernacle, while a second altar was put in closer to the nave (middle of the sanctuary). I don’t understand why more churches didn’t do this. I’ve actually seen at least one priest use the high altar…though he did so mere months before he retired, so perhaps he felt he no longer cared about the inevitable controversy :rolleyes:
My wife is Dominican, so I’ve spent time in the Dominican Republic. The cathedral in Santo Domingo is the oldest church in the Americas (and incidentally I think most Americans would be shocked to learn that His Eminence, the Cardinal Archbishop, holds the honorific “Primate of All America”). I consider it a medieval church as its construction predates Luther’s theses. There are, of course, numerous side chapels…when daily mass is celebrated in a side chapel, rather than using the beautiful historic altars already in place, they carry in a table to allow the priest to face the congregation.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
I don’t think that such words need to be heard by the faithful even if they are mentioned. If they did, then the Traditional Latin Mass would not have a silent Canon. It is better if such words are pronounced silently.
Click to expand...
But doesn’t hearing the words make it a lot more meaningful to the people? It’s for us after all, not for God who needs nothing. I certainly don’t want to go back to the days when nobody saw, heard or understand what was happening on the altar. If we’re going to mass to offer a sacrifice then we ought to be able to participate in it.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
I don’t think that such words need to be heard by the faithful even if they are mentioned. If they did, then the Traditional Latin Mass would not have a silent Canon. It is better if such words are pronounced silently.
Click to expand...
As far as I inow, Eucharistic prayer is said aloud in the Byzantine and various Oriental rites. This is also an ancient tradition. That being said, the actual consecration is typically hidden from view as the Royal doors are closed (in the byzantine rite) and the sanctuary veil is closed (in at least the Syriac rites).
 
seagal said:
But doesn’t hearing the words make it a lot more meaningful to the people? It’s for us after all, not for God who needs nothing.
Click to expand...
It is much better for a solemn silence to pervade the Canon. The benefits from such silence far exceed any perceived benefits of hearing the words of Consecration. The focus should be on God, not us.
 
seagal said:
But doesn’t hearing the words make it a lot more meaningful to the people? It’s for us after all, not for God who needs nothing. I certainly don’t want to go back to the days when nobody saw, heard or understand what was happening on the altar. If we’re going to mass to offer a sacrifice then we ought to be able to participate in it.
Click to expand...
Then pity the poor people who couldn’t witness their own sacrifice in the OT.

And if one thinks the OT has no relevance here, there is the mention of Abel, Melchizedek, and Abraham in the Roman Canon, whether one hears it or not.
 
seagal said:
It’s subjective of course, I don’t agree.
Click to expand...
It’s a doctrinal point. From Trent Session 22:
ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
Click to expand...
DOCTRINE
.
.
.
CHAPTER V.
Click to expand...
On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Click to expand...
And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
.
.
.
CHAPTER IX.
Click to expand...
Preliminary Remark on the following Canons.
Click to expand...
And because that many errors are at this time disseminated and many things are taught and maintained by divers persons, in opposition to this ancient faith, which is based on the sacred Gospel, the traditions of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers; the sacred and holy Synod, after many and grave deliberations maturely had touching these matters, has resolved, with the unanimous consent of all the Fathers, to condemn, and to eliminate from holy Church, by means of the canons subjoined, whatsoever is opposed to this most pure faith and sacred doctrine.
.
.
.
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Note: It may be true that the anathema no longer exists. However, this shouldn’t imply the doctrine has been changed, if I understand the definition of doctrine correctly.
 
seagal said:
But doesn’t hearing the words make it a lot more meaningful to the people? It’s for us after all, not for God who needs nothing. I certainly don’t want to go back to the days when nobody saw, heard or understand what was happening on the altar. If we’re going to mass to offer a sacrifice then we ought to be able to participate in it.
Click to expand...
Indeed you are right and for many reasons.

How profoundly meaningful it is to hear the priest say in persona Christi “Take this all of you and eat of it, for this is my Body, which will be given up for you” and “Take this all of you and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my Blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

“For you.”

Because of the common priesthood, so beautifully articulated and re-emphasised in the documents of Vatican II, you are one in offering the sacrifice with the priest. Personally, I am always most pleased when I celebrate Masses in churches and chapels where the altar is in the center of the worship space and thereby what is being evoked is well represented: that the altar is the center of the Christian community around which it gathers to offer the daily sacrifice of the Mass to the Father through Christ in the Spirit, led by the Presider and with each making their contribution.
 
twf said:
As far as I inow, Eucharistic prayer is said aloud in the Byzantine and various Oriental rites. This is also an ancient tradition. That being said, the actual consecration is typically hidden from view as the Royal doors are closed (in the byzantine rite) and the sanctuary veil is closed (in at least the Syriac rites).
Click to expand...
Generally not, although it is not uncommon and is a growing practice among both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox in the United States. The anaphora is prayed while the people sing the Holy, Holy, Holy. The words of institution are always prayed aloud. I’ve often thought that the anaphora should be prayed aloud, particularly the anaphora of St. Basil the Great, as it so beautifully tells the story of salvation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top