Well, according to the book “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber,” vernacular was perhaps the most discussed and spirited subject in the Vatican Council II SC. The “conservative” side inserted the clause “Latin is to be retained in the Latin Rite.” The “liberal” side fought for vernacular to the limits the bishops permitted.
Again, I don’t mind vernacular (esp when done reverently). But I’ll be honest, the bi-lingual and tri-lingual masses drive me crazy.
Yes, exactly. It’s easy to guess who won. That little phrase was held up by conservatives for years but for 90% of the bishops and priests it made no sense and they probably thought it was just a printer’s error.
Good point. It would be quite simple to do the Rosary in Latin when there are multiple languages. With so much repetition just about anyone would eventually get it right - and it’s a great chance to learn and have everyone praying in a common language.
Yes, that does make sense. And the Church of England is somewhat (not totaly) of a national Church, at least in comparison with the Catholic Faith which is found at the heart of so many cultures and languages. Yes, the personal parishes had their purpose for a time. But at least in the U.S., assimilation has reduced that need.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you on how Mass should be. At Fordham University, where I attend, the morning Mass is done in a traditional setting (but in English) and I love it more than any other Masses I have ever been to.
Yes I am aware of that, I’ve visited monasteries around Europe. However going even further back there was no daily Mass in a Benedictine monastery (I’m talking around the 6th-7th Century) and few monks were priests. However that’s all sort of irrelevant. Today monasteries of men using the Ordinary Form, which is the majority of them, do concelebrate (those of women usually have only one priest, the chaplain though sometimes visiting priests will concelebrate with the chaplain). Some configurations work better for that, some not so much. The church at our abbey was consecrated in 1994 and thus was configured with concelebration in mind. However I’ve also been to some older churches where it works well too, but at some, like Monte Cassino, I felt it didn’t work so well.
Not all side altars had tabernacles!!! Only the altar of the Reserved Eucharist! The priest would say his daily Mass and consume all of the Host and the Precious blood, that wasn’t where the Eucharistic reserve was kept.
Moreover, no matter which way the priest faces at an altar he is facing God present on the altar after consecration. The Mass was celebrated facing the altar away from the people (if there were any) at the side altar, simply because the altar was built up against the wall, and it was not possible to celebrate the other way. Moreover most of these Masses were without the faithful, who more generally would attend the daily conventual Mass with chant, etc.
It was common elsewhere as well. I have a 1935 Ceremonial to prove it. In some cathedrals or monasteries, the altar was between the nave and the choir. The Ceremonial gives instructions on how to celebrate the Mass facing the people (ad orientem for the choir, but versus populum for the people) and the opposite: versus populum for the choir and ad orientem for the people. In that configuration, someone, either the choir of monks (not all priests but likely all choir monks thus destined to become so), or the people, saw the priest facing towards or away from them.
No, the norms covered all possibilities, even if in parishes, one configuration was the most common. That was most certainly not the case in monasteries and cathedrals.
True but many did have tabernacles where a ciborium could be kept during Mass for the distribution of Communion to the faithful. Symbolically the priest would face that direction.
Just curious - how common do you think it was? I mean in terms of overall population of churches? 40%? 10%? 3%?
The Church consists of Eastern Rites as well and the ad orientem position is the norm there.
As noted from the Ceremonial, this was strongly discouraged and could be no means be considered the norm. The priest would face that direction because the altar was against the wall and the only place for him to stand and consecrate the Eucharist was facing the wall.
No, but generally side altars were not for public Masses, though the public could attend if present. They were intended for the priest to say his daily Mass as concelebration was forbidden except in very limited circumstances, and the priest had an obligation to offer Mass daily. Both are no longer the case, so side altars have lost their relevance (other than artistic or devotional) in most places except those that still use the Extraordinary Form.
I have no idea, but consider that each diocese had a cathedral, and many of not most had choirs and chapters of canons so you can see that the number is not insignificant. Then add all the monasteries with similar layouts. I was born in 1958, so in the period of flux just before and after Vatican II and I don’t remember paying any attention to such matters in my childhood in the '60s.
Again I have no idea. What matters is that it was licit and provided for in the rubrics. In Canada, Mary Queen of the World Cathedral has the same layout as St. Peter’s, in fact it’s a scaled-down version of St. Peter’s.
The Eastern Churches are not relevant to the discussion IMHO. They have their traditions. As for the EF, Benedict XVI removed obstacles to making it more widely available. It was his prerogative as Pope and our opinions of it matter little, he acted within his authority and thus we are all bound in obedience to accept that decision.
Choirs are positioned at the side, not in front of the altar.
I’ll suggest that what matters is you’ve called something “common” but when asked how common it was, you really don’t know. Less than 1% of all Churches in North America (or the Americas in general)? That would be my guess.
They’re ancient churches and teach us something about liturgical tradition.
Pope Benedict explained his reasons for making that decision.
I don’t appreciate the ad hominem. The Ceremonial I am talking about is complete with diagrams of the different configurations. Choir stalls are alongside the walls, either ahead of, or behind the altar. Sometimes in a U shape.
Common enough to mention in the rubrics. Common enough to be found in many monasteries and cathedrals around the world. Please note that the Church is not limited to North America and the rubrics are for all.
But they don’t preclude us from evolving our traditions in our own way. I don’t mean that their traditions are insignificant, but they are theirs.
And people have grown up with the OF and it has formed their liturgical sensibilities. Blessed as I am to have a nearby OF in Gregorian chant done with monastic sensibility to the Liturgy, a monastery of the Solesmes congregation, I can appreciate that the OF has its own inherent beauty when done with care and love.
When I asked you stated you had no idea. I then replied by stating that you had no idea. I apologize if that came across as an ad hominem.
Let’s put it this way, if it was common you’d have an abundance of references to show me. I can show you an abundance already - namely all the churches in North America I’ve ever visited, as well as those in South America and 99% of what I’ve visited in Europe. So, no - I think you should back away from the idea that versus populum altars were “common”. But I’d also think the burden is on you to show it.
You may be right - it depends on how liturgists view the overall liturgical tradition of the Church, East and West. That’s why some of the leaders of the liturgical change at Vatican II sought insight from Eastern Christianity (and the OF reflects that).
Yes you are blessed - keeping in mind you’re not in a geographical parish but going to a monastery which most people cannot do (and do not have access to).
One of the unfortunate things, as I see it, is that the changes in the liturgy caused (and still cause) a lot of arguments and actually division between good Catholics.
I have seen side altars that were free standing and permitted Mass facing the people. The reform prefers that there be one lone altar because of the sign value for the liturgical assembly
It was in many places.
Indeed the Eastern Churches are not relevant as they are their own reality, apart. There are, however, Eastern Churches with the Synaxis facing the people…I have concelebrated at such liturgies and attended others in choir.
You will frequently find the interaction with those attached to the vetus ordo unpleasant. That has been my experience going all the way back. How the Blessed Paul VI was incredibly abused by such – and that should always be remembered.
Oh good! I found this question. I had wanted to answer it and then I could not find it.
Yes, I have also found the hostility and opposition to the traditional rite to be a very unpleasant thing to encounter. It’s unfortunate that so often, those attached to the novus ordo have little knowledge of the Church’s liturgical tradition.
I have done my best to forgive and forget how so many people abused the Church’s past, as if it was something evil.
Interesting. If you and OraLabora accept that point of view (as many priests I know do) then I would expect to find very little similarity between your version of the novus ordo and that of the EF. I would expect to find every aspect of the traditional liturgy having undergone a modern reform with nothing (your “None”) of the past preserved.
This is the crux of the matter. This is what led so many to fall from their faith, not the new Missal itself. This, to the admittedly lesser but still significant extent that it still goes on, is a big part of what drives young people with no memory of the Vetus Ordo, towards it.
Agreed. In the early years, the experimentation was permitted - so some believed it was the lack of boundaries given in the liturgical reform that caused the problem. Over time some discipline came in, and yes as you say it’s a lesser extent, but that kind of thing still goes on. In some cases, the experimentation and violation of the liturgical norms (altar girls) led to actual changes in the liturgical rules itself (as altar girls were later permitted). But I encounter young Catholics all the time who simply do not like the free-style liturgy in their parish and when they encounter the sacred form of the traditional rite they find a home there.
True - it’s something like a re-interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium that could bring about a “return to the sacred” and more reverence.
This is a logical non sequitur. Review and reform can be anything from minor tweaks to major reforms. A good example of a minor reform is in Gregorian chant. Prior to the reforms, the Kyrie was nine-fold. Post-reform, it is 6-fold except on the major solemnities. Yet the melodies are identical and the resemblance very obvious. Some reforms added options, such as the Eucharistic prayers. New options were added without removing the Roman Canon. Many reforms removed gestures and accretions that were, if anything, distractions for the priest. I could pull numerous examples out of that 1935 ceremonial. I’m at the abbey at the moment but if you want examples I could post them this evening.
I find the I opposite equally true, many attached to the EF and 1960 Breviary know little about how we got there. Most attached to the 1960 Breviary, for instance, do not know that it only goes back to 1910 and was itself a radical reform. It only had 60 years as the “ordinary” breviary. Hardly a “tradition” in a 2000 year old Church. Few know that by the late 1800’s, Gregorian chant was thoroughly denatured and had to be reformed. The Gregorian chant of today is the product of the late 1800’s reforms of Solesmes, reforms that continue to be debated among scholars today, with different schools of interpretation.
That’s not necessary. SC provided guidelines for the reforms, which led to the Editio Typica of the Roman Missal in 1970. The missal is fine as it is. What is needed is better formation of priests in liturgy, and better discipline and supervision.