S
- Status
S
Sure
Guest
A
AJV
Guest
Source?
I don’t think that is necessarily the case. If we take the direction of ad populum as East then the corpus on the cross will commonly be facing West- prior to the 1962 missal, especially, so that the celebrant could direct all bows to the corpus. Even otherwise when the celebrant celebrates “normally” i.e. towards “the wall”
if we are taking that as liturgical East the corpus is facing liturgical WestBut there’s no need for resorting to the cross since Latin rubric V, 3 presumes that it is because of the geographical East.
In commenting on the rubric though, Gavanti does make it as a more liberal interpretation for altars in choir “sicut saepe collocabatur antiquitus”. And the reason for this is that the other rubric on East is commonly ignored in favour of a versus apsidem celebration that is not East.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Let’s say that a Church was built with the altar on the east side of the Church, at which the Priest said mass while facing east, with the congregation behind him (as was typical before Vatinan II). And let’s say that, after the Church was built, it was discovered that the tomb of a great saint - St. Peter, for example - was burried beneath the Church! Not beneath the altar, but instead near the back of the Church. And let’s say that in order to have the altar over the tomb of this great saint, the Bishop of the diocese decided to move the altar to the back of the Church. In this case, if the Priest said Mass on that altar while facing east, he would be facing the people who would be in front of him.
If I am not mistaken (and feel free to correct me if I am) that is the exact situation with St. Peter’s in Rome, and is why there are people in front of the Priest as he says Mass at the altar while facing east.
S
Sure
Guest
I’m not sure about the movements of the Altar at St. Peters, but that sounds reasonable enough.
But what if the church faces North/South?
It seems to me we should just stick with liturgically east (and include the versus populem option) and stay away from considering true geographical east. This would seem to be the least problematic.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
I’ve been reading this quickly so forgive me if I’m missing something, but I was wondering about other legislation governing precisely when the altar may face the people. In other words, yes, we see in the rubrics that some altars, it was envisioned, might be facing the people, but could this be done for any and all reasons or was it tied to certain conditions?Source?
I don’t think that is necessarily the case. If we take the direction of ad populum as East then the corpus on the cross will commonly be facing West- prior to the 1962 missal, especially, so that the celebrant could direct all bows to the corpus. Even otherwise when the celebrant celebrates “normally” i.e. towards “the wall”
But there’s no need for resorting to the cross since Latin rubric V, 3 presumes that it is because of the geographical East.
In commenting on the rubric though, Gavanti does make it as a more liberal interpretation for altars in choir “sicut saepe collocabatur antiquitus”. And the reason for this is that the other rubric on East is commonly ignored in favour of a versus apsidem celebration that is not East.
K
kleary
Guest
This is the biggest joke ever. The TLM’s that “faced the people” were NOT FACING THE PEOPLE for the PURPOSE OF FACING THE PEOPLE.
It is just that the churches were orientated differently which had the celebrant facing the people in order to celebrate the Mass while facing East.
“Facing the people” today is a “Protestant Concept” which is done in order to make the Mass look like “not a sacrifice upon an altar” but a “meal at a table to serve men to eat thereof”. “Facing the people” is NOT a Christian concept- it comes from “Reformation Theology” that denies the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass.
Ken
S
stmaria
Guest
Of course you are correct. I have posted twice in this thread what Pope Benedict had to say about this subject but there are those that refuse to accept it. Once again from Pope Benedict.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - The Spirit of the Liturgy
The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer…However, in Saint Peter’s, during the pontificate of Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), the altar was moved nearer to the bishop’s chair, probably for the simple reason that he was supposed to stand as much as possible above the tomb of Saint Peter. This was an outward and visible expression of the truth that we celebrate the Sacrifice of the Lord in the Communion of Saints, a communion spanning all the times and ages… The custom of erecting an altar above the tombs of the martyrs probably goes back a long way and is an outcome of the same motivation… Because of topographical circumstances, it turned out that Saint Peter’s faced west. Thus, if the celebrating priest wanted – as the Christian tradition of prayer demands – to face east, he had to stand behind the people and look – this is the logical conclusion – toward the people… The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this** alleged model **and developed from it a new idea for the form of the Liturgy. The Eucharist, so it was said, had to be celebrated versus populum (towards the people). The altar – as can be seen in the normative model of Saint Peter’s – had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community… This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate
A
AJV
Guest
Always glad to amuse
*A cheerful heart doeth good like a medicine should. *Too true.
I still would like to know though then, why Pope Pius VI faced the people when there was a perfectly good eastward facing altar in St. Stephen’s, Vienna. Or why people using TLM rubrics happened to think it lawful to have “ad populum” altars in the 40’s and 50’s. I don’t believe the altar at Lugano was facing geographical East. Why wasn’t this practice deemed contra-rubricam and why did Pius XII seemingly give approval in the 1956 Allocution, being only concerned about whether the tabernacle was placed on the altar?
Yes, we’d like personal proof in his own handwriting. With Papal seal.
Of course he’s right when he’s speaking about the original reason. Who’s disputing it? The question is how well this reason survived or was it discarded along with ones such as the people turning to the East along with the priest. I think I could be quite justified in saying that if he had said this 60-70 years back, most people would have laughed because the assumption was well and truly fixed that the basilican model represented the ideal ad populum posture.
And I can definitely agree that the topographical features were the reason, but then how did anyone managae to get away with ad populum celebrations in the 1950’s when TLM rubrics were in force?
A
AJV
Guest
Always glad to amuse
*A cheerful heart doeth good like a medicine should. *Too true.
I still would like to know though then, why Pope Pius VI faced the people when there was a perfectly good eastward facing altar in St. Stephen’s, Vienna. Or why people using TLM rubrics happened to think it lawful to have “ad populum” altars in the 40’s and 50’s. I don’t believe the altar at Lugano was facing geographical East. Why wasn’t this practice deemed contra-rubricam and why did Pius XII seemingly give approval in the 1956 Allocution, being only concerned about whether the tabernacle was placed on the altar?
Yes, we’d like personal proof in his own handwriting. With Papal seal. Signed and witnessed by two people of which neither must be a relative or a Vatican employee
Of course he’s right when he’s speaking about the original reason. Who’s disputing it? The question is how well this reason survived or was it discarded along with ones such as the people turning to the East along with the priest. I think I could be quite justified in saying that if he had said this 60-70 years back, most people would have laughed because the assumption was well and truly fixed that the basilican model represented the ideal ad populum posture.
And I can definitely agree that the topographical features were the reason, but then how did anyone managed to get away with ad populum celebrations in the 1950’s when TLM rubrics were in force? I’d love to know any condemnation of ad populum that was issued at that time.
S
stmaria
Guest
AJV can you provide the link where the rubrics of 1940 and 50 actually say that the priest should face the people to provide active participation of the people? What other reason would there be in your mind to have the priest face the people? Do these rubrics that you have read explain why instead of facing east the priest would face the people? In *Spirit of the Liturgy *the Pope seems to be unaware of such rubrics.
S
Sure
Guest
What about all the old churches that face North/South or the churches where ad populem would be east, but they still said Mass facing the West?
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I guess this shows my ignorance, but I always thought Catholic Churches faced east. I was told that years ago; and after hearing it, every older Church I checked did face east. I thought it was a requirement. Are you sure some Churches faxed other directions?
C
Caesar
Guest
The general practice was to build churches oriented East. In Rome, several of the ancient basilicas were oriented West, mostly because they were built over pre-existing structures.
L
lak611
Guest
Which basilicas are oriented West?
C
Caesar
Guest
The five Papal (formerly called Patriarchal) Basilicas- St. Peter’s, St. John Lateran, St. Mary Major, St. Paul Outside the Walls, and St. Lawrence Outside the Walls.
L
lak611
Guest
Thank you.
S
Sure
Guest
Just off the top of my head I can think of many churches in the Chicago area that are oriented North, South, or West. These were built between around 1880 and 1925, so i’m not talking about modern buildings.
The most beautiful church in the US, the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis has an altar that faces North.
C
Caesar
Guest
In the last two centuries the Church has been more open with exceptions to the ad orientum rule in Church construction. Often these exceptions are made because of topographic issues (one church I know was built oriented North to avoid building it into a hill) on the construction site, or the size of the land parcels.
In my opinion this is very unfortunate as the Eastward orientation is of great importance to the Catholic sanctuary.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Same here. From what I’ve heard, when the sun comes up, it’s rather spectacular because the refracted sunlight coming in through the stained glass window is amazing.
- Status