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.
ProVobis said:
Then why have Mass at all?
Click to expand...
If you really have to ask that question, then I see this dialogue with you really is at the most absolute basic of beginnings. I had taken it that you actually had a base of knowledge.
 
ProVobis said:
Then why have Mass at all?
Click to expand...
Come on now–you know better than to give an answer like that. You know very well what Jesus did and said at the Last Supper, and what He has to say in the Gospel of John. We have it because He desires it and commanded it. He wants US to partake of His flesh and blood so we have life in us. We don’t just adore Jesus–we take Him in, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. He is our real food. We need to hear this, and do this. Jesus was not silent about it-not al all.
 
I’m pretty neutral on the physical orientation of the priest, as long as his mental orientation, and that of the congregation, is toward God in heaven and on the sacrifice about to be offered. After all, the Eucharistic Prayer is a prayer directed by the priest to the Father.

“We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless + these gifts we offer you in sacrifice.”
 
ProVobis said:
It’s a doctrinal point. From Trent Session 22:

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.
Click to expand...
On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

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.
Click to expand...
I don’t read this as saying that this is the way things must be done and is absolutely a superior way. I see that the Church acknowledges that certain practices have developed for a particular reason. In this case, having certain parts of the Mass in a low voice and certain parts in a louder tone developed in order to help us better contemplate higher things. If the Church, at this time in history, has decided that another way is better does not contradict that which has gone before.
.
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...
Saying that we prefer that the Eucharistic Prayer be audible because we believe it to be more beneficial is not the same thing as condemning the practice of praying it in a low tone.
 
babochka said:
If the Church, at this time in history, has decided that another way is better does not contradict that which has gone before.
Click to expand...
That’s not the way I would talk about doctrine, which to me implies timelessness, but you’re entitled to rationalizing amplification of the spoken word if you wish. They could have used this same rationale at anytime in the Church’s history IMO, so why choose now to change norms? God isn’t suddenly hard of hearing.
Saying that we prefer that the Eucharistic Prayer be audible because we believe it to be more beneficial is not the same thing as condemning the practice of praying it in a low tone.
Click to expand...
Allowing preferences to take hold is a pastoral thing; it has nothing to do with the underlying doctrine.

Personally I don’t see a direct violation of the doctrine, although trying to pretend it doesn’t exist does seem to undermine an entire set of documents which held the church together for over 400 years.

.
 
babochka said:
Saying that we prefer that the Eucharistic Prayer be audible because we believe it to be more beneficial is not the same thing as condemning the practice of praying it in a low tone.
Click to expand...
You are indeed most correct, Babochka. In point of fact, the pronouncements of the Council Fathers of Trent were declarations in the face of appeals from those seeking reform and restoration for such things, among others, as
  • Vernacular in the liturgy…which the Council Fathers of Vatican II acceded to in Sacrosanctum Concilium
  • Communion under both species…which the Council Fathers of Vatican II acceded to in Sacrosanctum Concilium
  • A greater access to the Sacred Scriptures and a greater emphasis on them in the Sacred Liturgy…which the Council Fathers of Vatican II acceded to in Sacrosanctum Concilium
  • A greater involvement and participation on the part of the laity in the liturgy…which the Council Fathers of Vatican II acceded to in Sacrosanctum Concilium
  • This last in view of the common priesthood of the faithful, a point taken up by the Council Fathers of Vatican II and articulated in Lumen Gentium
The Council Fathers of Vatican II stating:
*21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.*
Just as the Council Fathers of Vatican II also proclaimed in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.
And this so that there would cease to be any sense in the Occidental Church that there was any superiority of Latin or the Latin Rite over the other Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome; their venerable traditions are, finally, to be held with the deepest of esteem, purified of the untoward influences that they have suffered in Church history because of the West, and which are venerated for their own traditions which go back to the Church’s very earliest days.
 
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...
Actually it’s not set in concrete how the Twelve and Jesus sat at the Last Supper. The triclinium comes to mind.

gallery4collectors.com

James Seward Artist Spiritual Art Prints at Gallery4Collectors.com

James Seward Artist, a devout Christian painted Jesus and scenes from the Bible so realistic you feel you are there with them. Free Collectors Club - Discounts
gallery4collectors.com gallery4collectors.com

So yeah, it is certainly possible that some of the Twelve were facing Jesus at the Last Supper.
 
This should be the norm, whenever possible.

"Five years before he became Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger wrote that, notwithstanding various liturgical innovations, “one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning.” As he wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

“The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall;” it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people.” . . . For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord.” . . . They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us.”

Ed
 
phil19034 said:
Could you please provide a descriptive example? I have never seen a post Vatican II parish where this would be impossible. There is always room for one priest. And usually, there is still room for concelebrating priests, even if the concelebrating priest has to take a step down.

If you have a lot of priests concelebrating for Easter Vigil, etc, the concelebrating priests could sit in the front rows of the pews like they do often at Chrism Masses.
Click to expand...
In some parishes it might indeed be difficult. The parish I grew up in, the altar was not fixed, so it could be moved. So it would be nothing to push the altar back closer to the wall an implement this. But the parish I an in now, the marble altar is fixed and very close to both the steps and the people. I would be possible, as I have seen some high altars with very little space for the priests to stand. I am not sure it would be ideal as the priest would always have to walk around the altar to do anything else, including opening the tabernacle, sitting down, etc.

I actually really like the Novus Ordo said in Latin celebrated ad orientem, I prefer it to both an EF and a NO in the vernacular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top