B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Aren’t the pews to the rear of that POV?
Also, doesn’t the posture of the others serving the Mass also provide some clue?
- Status
Also, doesn’t the posture of the others serving the Mass also provide some clue?
P
pnewton
Guest
Do you really think that is the way it is? I would rather think that most people do not really care one way or another. If it is an issue, then that would be all the more reason to change, so that the faithful can be properly instructed. Sometimes the Church, like a parent, does what is best so that the faithful, (the kids) can grow and learn.
J
Jane_of_Arc
Guest
**Before Vatican II, NONE of us…including the priest & altar servers turned our backs to the Tabernacle, Crucifix or the Altar of Sacrifice. Even those of us who helped clean the Sanctuary, when we crossed in front of the Tabernacle, stopped…turned toward it & genuflected before we went on across.
Now, most of us have no idea where the Tabernacle is & the notion of Sacrifice is downplayed. I have no idea why??
.**
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
No, it reveals what I have heard in many discussions with my fellow Catholics of all ages. Your assumption of my supposed bias is wrong, and just as assuming as you claim mine is. I think it would be wise to stop now.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
You have no idea of how many times I have heard “The priest used to turn his back to us. We couldn’t hear him,.” Or, I don’t like talking to the back of someone’s head." Or, "Why would anyone want Mass in a language they can’t understand?’ Or “The Mass was in Latin and no one could hear the priest, so we prayed the Rosary.” Yes, I really think that is the way it is, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to make it otherwise. I am not debating the right or wrong of the remarks, just telling it like it is. People today are not near as afraid to voice their objections to what the Church does or says as they were 50 years ago. There has been a major attitude shift and they no longer feel as constrained as they once did. They feel they have every right to question things and object when necessary. And if they don’t get the answer they want, they pick up and leave.
They have experienced some very serious failings of Church leaders and the clergy are not held in as high esteem as they once were. Read these forums and see how many threads have to be closed because people are trashing priests, Bishops, and even the Pope. That would have never happened 50 years ago. I know, I grew up in that era.
I’m done discussing this. I have been accused of being biased and I have not even made my opinion on the actual subject matter known. I am not going to engage in a battle here.
C
codefro
Guest
A lot of the points made here seem to be irrelevant. The point has been made before of people praying the rosary or devotions during the mass before V-II because of the lack of understanding of Latin. Now, the Church has pointed out that with the presence of the vernacular in the liturgy, our attention should be focused on the mass. So- whether that the priest has his back to the people doesn’t automatically mean the Church changes her mind on whether it is right or wrong to pray devotions during while the mass is going on. Most likely, the english is still being used, so why would someone feel so offended when the priest faces the Lord? Also, in my opinion, when a Catholic spends much of their time bashing the clergy, it is a bigger reflection of themselves as opposed to the priests, bishops, and Popes. If I hear a Catholic bashing a bishop or Pope, I am eager to point out that they should show a little more respect to those whom God has appointed, and if they don’t then our conversation isn’t going to go anywhere. So, after all that, I don’t see how “angry” lay Catholics should decide which traditions should be kept and abandoned in the liturgy.
J
jwinch2
Guest
He isn’t saying it is right. He is simply saying how it is. Dismissing others’ opinions or feelings as irrelevant isn’t going to go too far towards changing them.
As for your final comment. Many Catholics would argue that as Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist, the priest is facing Him regardless of what cardinal direction he is facing. I understand the pious tradition of facing East and in fact, often pray that way myself. However, pious tradition does not equal Sacred Tradition, and we should probably realize that as Catholic Christians.
Personally, I would be open to the priest facing towards the East when praying to God but don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t face the people of the parish when speaking in persona Christi, such as during the institution narrative. But even then, I am not too worried about it as long as the sounds system is decent and people can properly hear the priest.
However, in our parish, we do have a couple of hearing challenged people who, while they are not deaf, do have reduced hearing and sit up front so that they can read the priest’s, deacon’s, lector’s lips. If the priest was facing away, the parish would have to find someone who could do American Sign Language for the Masses that they attend. Sometimes it isn’t as simple as turning around and telling the faithful to deal with it.
J
jwinch2
Guest
No, it doesn’t. The assumption, and the bias rests squarely on your shoulders.
He is simply relating the positions of others. I have done so when arguing for the availability of the EF of the Mass several times here on CAF and elsewhere, even though I do not prefer it for myself. I have also argued for parishes who have multiple masses to have one with more modern music for those who like it, even though I definitely do not prefer that and will not attend the one our parish has.
It is quite possible to present the opinions of others without agreeing or disagreeing with them.
C
codefro
Guest
seems a bit strange to push for things that you don’t care about. what’s the point, if I may ask? Things like modern music? That’s something the Pope spoke out against in the same book.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Because I recognize that many people prefer it and I want them to go to Mass and be fulfilled spiritually. Just like many people are more fulfilled spiritually by the EF of the Mass. Thus, I want them to have it.
Yes, the Pope did comment on the situation, but the rules as they stand call for chant and organ to have primacy of place, but do allow for piano, etc. as well.
Also, please understand what I am saying and what I am not. What I am not doing is supporting electric guitar and a drum set. There is a Saturday evening Mass in town that has electric guitar, bass, electric drums, etc. I absolutely abhor it and believe it is inappropriate for Mass. What I am saying that if others prefer more modern hymns, (the majority if our parish is made up of baby boomers who really seem to like the Marty Haugen stuff
), perhaps with piano instead of organ, it is not my business to tell them what to like. As long as the Mass is being celebrated properly (e.g. within the rubrics), the rest is not up to me.I personally prefer the OF of the Mass in English with pipe organ and traditional hymns (much of the older English stuff from the Anglican tradition is great!), a sung Mass, and perhaps a bit of chant now and then. Give me some smells and bells to go with it, and I am a happy Catholic!
I recognize that many disagree, so as long as they are not taking away what I find spiritually fulfilling, then I am not out to take away their preferences. I would rather see them at Mass then at the protestant church down the road.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Those pews face the other way, and are used for Masses celebrated at the Altar of the Chair (which is in the apse), not for those celebrated at the high altar (which is in the crossing). You can see this aspect of the layout much more clearly in View #1. The main nave of St. Peter’s does not have pews; moveable chairs are used instead during Mass and then struck afterwards. I’m not sure what you mean about the “posture” of the other servers. The other, backs-to-the-people side of the high altar is simply unusable, because there is a big pit, the confessio, there. No Mass has ever been celebrated, or ever will be celebrated, at the high altar of St. Peter’s – or of St. John Lateran, for equivalent reasons – with the celebrant’s back facing congregation in the nave.
I should mention that I use that phrase not because I want to pick a loaded, prejudicial term to describe the position, but because the term “ad orientem” has been so co-opted and distorted that it is now impossible to know, without clarification, if it is supposed to mean “to the east” or “any point 'round the whole compass, provided only that the congregation is looking at his back.” Sometimes the distortion is so gross that it results in a travesty like this one, shown below, in which the congregation, women and all, is forced to sit in the sanctuary so that the priest can turn his back upon them in order to do a proper Mass à la 1962.
S
severus68
Guest
Everyone I know knows where the Tabernacle is and no one downplays the notion of the Sacrifice at my church where the OF mass is celebrated so are you talking about Catholics in the US? How would the priest facing the people make people forget where the Tabernacle is and what the Consecration is about?**Before Vatican II, NONE of us…including the priest & altar servers turned our backs to the Tabernacle, Crucifix or the Altar of Sacrifice. Even those of us who helped clean the Sanctuary, when we crossed in front of the Tabernacle, stopped…turned toward it & genuflected before we went on across.
Now, most of us have no idea where the Tabernacle is & the notion of Sacrifice is downplayed. I have no idea why??
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
What if all churches faced the direction of St. Peter’s? That way the priest could face the people and face east.
Is it good or bad that St. Peter’s faces the way it does?
Is it good or bad that St. Peter’s faces the way it does?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I know very few churches where ad orientum is offered.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I thought the technical term was ‘Liturgical East’ i.e. symbolic east, where the tabernacle, crucifix and high altar altar usually are? Not all churches are sited compass East to West, for practical reasons. Maybe very few.
adoremus.org/1199-Kocik.html
It’s symbolism, in a religious rite.
adoremus.org/1199-Kocik.html
It’s symbolism, in a religious rite.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
Actually, to recognize that others have different viewpoints, whether one thinks they are right or wrong, is a more sensible approach than just pushing one’s own agenda. That is how actual dialogue happens, and that is also more likely to be a vehicle of change than an “in your face” diehard attitude, which tends to ruffle feathers and closes discussion. One has to be willing to listen and respect that others have the right to their own opinion, and even, if after listening, see if they have something worthwhile to say. After all, that’s what you want others to do for you, isn’t it?
There is nothing wrong in recognizing another’s point of view and even objectively presenting it. When I say what the people in my parish are saying, that does not imply I agree. I am reporting what I have heard, and my argument that I feel something will not work is based more on real evidence from my observations, rather than what I think or what I would like. That is not “pushing” for anything.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
I’m a she.
Thank you for understanding and clarifying my position.
W
Windmill
Guest
It’s “dialogues” like this that make many give up on bringing anything traditional to the OF and they simply go to an EF Mass where they can experience the liturgical universe they read about in saints’ books. Honestly, the uphill battle many would face trying to implement things like ad orientem, Gregorian chant, altar rails, Latin, etc, would be too much to handle. However, if you go to an EF Mass, these things are standard issue without any argument. It’s a no-brainer.
- Status