Fighting over liturgy distorts purpose of Mass, papal liturgist says

[zz912]

Well…given your last post, I will answer in the hope that it may be helpful…if not to you, then perhaps it will be to someone else.

And actually, in answer to something you just posted, there are indeed ways to reasonably and civilly ask about and discuss liturgical matters with a parish priest and then with a diocesan official…I sat, off and on, in a chancery across the long years…but it is assuredly not the way you just tried to do it with me.

I can also plainly tell you that there are certainly ways not to do it – unless you want to effectively close that channel of communication permanently.

1. “to ad lib an entire Mass” is really to perhaps not have celebrated Mass at all since, in essence, the Presider did not employ the lectionary or missal at all from no sign of the cross in the beginning through to no blessing and dismissal ar the end…to ad lib an entire Mass means absolutely nothing conformed to the texts. If the priest is actually doing that, then you contact the bishop and you say that.

Of course, if that had been reported to me but, after an investigation that involved speaking with the person reporting and then with the priest, the deacon, and others from the parish, and finding the person misrepresented the situation – and the priest did not ad lib the entire Mass but, let us say, changed some number of words here and there – there would have been no second chance to talk to me again, ever. Whereas, if that person had honestly and accurately related what was happening, it would be a wholly different matter.

I’m curious on this. Is a priest allowed to change some number of words here and there in the Mass? While the person reporting would be guilty of overstating the case, isn’t there still concern of a priest changing words in Mass?

It is rather like a recent case to which I responded involving “denial of the Eucharist”. “Denial of the Eucharist” is a very specific phrase…it is an allegation with very specific canonical overtones. To invoke it is the equivalent to pulling an alarm lever. Denial of the Eucharist does not mean “I did not get to receive in the way I wished” or “I did not get to receive from the person I wished” or “I did not get to have the posture I wished.”

The options for receiving in the US are either on the tongue or in the hand, and either standing or kneeling. Hopefully a priest was not denying either legitimate option for the faithful.

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

Again, such a finding. that one of the latter three was what was really meant, would simply result in the person who made a denial of Eucharist claim being informed that what they had made was nothing short of a false allegation because of mischaracterisation. Period. And the discussion would, again, end there.

If a priest were to refuse a communicant the Eucharist in one of the proper manners, that while possibly being a mischaracterization, would still be an important issue that would need to be addressed with the priest.

 

[Convert_in_99]

The concern is not about a “more pleasant mass experience”, but whether the young people are receiving the Catholic faith or are they being pandered to. There is real concern that by organizing the Mass to conform to their whims, the implicit message they are receiving is that Mass is about THEIR entertainment, instead of worship of God.

It’s no different than having the mass in one’s native language. It’s better they come to a “contemporary” mass than not to at all. Ours are packed and numbers steadily increasing. The essentials of the mass are the same, only the music and homily is geared more towards the youth and adults who prefer these masses.

 

[zz912]

It’s no different than having the mass in one’s native language. It’s better they come to a “contemporary” mass than not to at all. Ours are packed and numbers steadily increasing. The essentials of the mass are the same, only the music and homily is geared more towards the youth and adults who prefer these masses.

What happens when the band they like disbands or doesn’t play anymore? What happens when the priest they enjoy moves to another parish? Will those same people still come if they don’t have music and homilies they like?

 

[pnewton]

Well, to be clear, I was Presider at many liturgies over the decades that did not necessarily suit my personal tastes…but that was not the criteria to be applied. That, liturgically, is an entirely different question. A priest imposing his personal aesthetics upon a grouping of the faithful simply because they are his personal aesthetics should be absolutely abhorrent.

However…

In my role, I have often had to meet a visiting priest and coordinate the upcoming liturgy, if you call ten minutes before Mass “coordinating.” I always, always offer the priest to make any changes to what we normally do and they have always insisted that they are the guest and would do things the way that we do them. Yet I have only once convinced a priest that I really wanted them to say Mass the way they wanted, sing the parts they want, etc. I understand being a good guest, but giving a parish something new is also of value.

So, the one priest that did say he wanted to change something (the entrance) told me he would sing the entrance for us and we would sing the verse, because it was a hymn he always liked for Pentacost. (Veni, Sancte Spiritu). So we followed along. I learned this from him and use it to this day. I am grateful that he took me at my word when I told him I wanted him to make changes he was used to. So there is something to be gained by a priest passing on his own aesthetics, at least if those present are open to it.

FYI - I too make it an effort not to let my own aesthetics lead all my choices in music, while at the same time avoiding the “squeaky wheel” bias.

 

[pnewton]

:slapfight: this thread…

I have seen real fighting over liturgy here. This is tame. Considering the topic, who wants to be the guy to distort the purpose of the Mass?

 

[Convert_in_99]

What happens when the band they like disbands or doesn’t play anymore? What happens when the priest they enjoy moves to another parish? Will those same people still come if they don’t have music and homilies they like?

I would hope so. But others have stopped going to mass because it’s no longer in Latin or the priest no longer has his back to the people. You will find them regardless. But many would continue still.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would hope so. But others have stopped going to mass because it’s no longer in Latin or the priest no longer has his back to the people. You will find them regardless. But many would continue still.

The priest never ‘had his back to the people’ my friend. The priest faced liturgical East along WITH the people. Personally I think it would do many people a lot of good if the priest once again faced East (and quite a few clergy think so as well, including Pope Emeritus Benedict who said so very recently), but it is up to the bishops to decide. I was 11 when the Mass went from Latin to English (In Philadelphia in 1967), my mom was then 38, my grandparents 82 and 77, and none of us stopped going, nor did any of our other family members, friends, classmates and families (and Philly is a BIG place and at the time very Catholic. You look back at the newspapers of the times and you won’t hear about people doing a "this isn’t MY Mass’ walkout or demonstration.) Back then, we were more inclined to be obedient in all spheres of life. We weren’t so convinced that we knew better than the priest, the bishop, the president, the Pope, our teachers, etc. etc. the way that too many seem to be today. . .

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The priest never ‘had his back to the people’ my friend. The priest faced liturgical East along WITH the people. Personally I think it would do many people a lot of good if the priest once again faced East (and quite a few clergy think so as well, including Pope Emeritus Benedict who said so very recently), but it is up to the bishops to decide.

First: Actually, the priest “having his back to the people” was indeed very much how it was perceived. Advocates for that orientation may insist otherwise but the fact remains that was (and is) in fact how it was perceived on the part of people and sophistry of expression does not alter that.

Apart from the Liturgical Movement – that is to say, Masses inspired and informed by the Liturgical Movement – it was very far from a sense of priest acting “WITH the people” – which is why Sacrosanctum Concilium is filled with the phrases and expressions that the Council Fathers use.

It has only been in recent times that there has been a focus on the so-called “liturgical east.” As a professor of liturgy and sacraments, I very much remember when and why the expression came into vogue…an expression that I think is actually of less use than “reform of the reform” which, thankfully, the Holy See has lately determined is a vocabulary to be retired as no longer useful.

The phrase “liturgical east” is a necessity because physically and actually facing toward the orient was of such little significance in the decades leading up to the Council, that so many of the newer churches, even from the era of my youth or the era of my parents and grandparents to say nothing of more modern construction, were not built with an eastward orientation.

Second: Thanks to the Liturgical Movement, in Europe we experienced Mass said facing the people in the era preparatory to the Council, among other innovations…it was a wonderful thing. I can’t presume to speak for the American experience…but neither should Americans attempt to universalise their experience to what was lived outside the United States.

When, at long last, we had the Mass in our vernacular, together with the Presider and congregation gathered around the altar, it was an even more wonderful thing…and the fruition of years of work and effort – that many were part of and that many more appreciated.

Today, in Europe, there are places where Mass is celebrated ad absidem because it was practically or architecturally impossible to place an altar facing the people…I have celebrated the Mass many times using that orientation over the decades and do so to the current day – but, it must be emphasised that, as it is done today, it is not at all as it was with the vetus ordo, again thanks to the liturgical reform and the liturgical renewal which gave us a liturgical assembly, Presider and people, in which the people have full, conscious, and active participation in the synaxis, as such.

Third: thankfully, Pope Francis has issued a clear directive: there is going to be no new directive in his pontificate on the Presider’s orientation at Mass.

I was 11 when the Mass went from Latin to English (In Philadelphia in 1967), my mom was then 38, my grandparents 82 and 77, and none of us stopped going, nor did any of our other family members, friends, classmates and families (and Philly is a BIG place and at the time very Catholic. You look back at the newspapers of the times and you won’t hear about people doing a "this isn’t MY Mass’ walkout or demonstration.) Back then, we were more inclined to be obedient in all spheres of life. We weren’t so convinced that we knew better than the priest, the bishop, the president, the Pope, our teachers, etc. etc. the way that too many seem to be today. . .

The reform and renewal of the liturgy was one of the greatest gifts to the Church, certainly in my lifetime. The reception and attitudes regarding Sacrosanctum Concilium giving us the benefits derived from the Liturgical Movement is not something I have any need to go back through newspapers to find or re-live; it is vividly in my memory.

 

[JimG]

I am perfectly satisfied with the way in which the Ordinary Form Mass is celebrated at my own parish. But it seems that several Catholic colleges and universities offer their students the Ordinary Form Mass ad orientem as well as the Extraordinary Form Mass, as noted here:

One such college is Thomas More College.

 

[pnewton]

First: Actually, the priest “having his back to the people” was indeed very much how it was perceived. Advocates for that orientation may insist otherwise but the fact remains that was (and is) in fact how it was perceived on the part of people and sophistry of expression does not alter that.

I found the arguments of Joseph Ratzinger in *Spirit of the Liturgy *rather enlightening on this topic. It was a great book, by the way.

I think it serves discussion better, and removes any sense of fighting, when we view both sides with an honest and open mind. Your remark is also something new that I have never applied to this topic. Perception is extremely important, so the idea that the priest had his back to the people as opposed to facing with the people would seem to be a greater consideration than the theological point so few knew.

I am sure all here would agree that there are real advantages to facing the people, sound clarity and the visibility of all gestures being primary. I could see one possible compromise, if the altar was not far from the front row, were the priest could be seen as facing with the people, yet still part of the people. It would have a lessened perception of turning the back. Oh, well, that is just speculation.

 

[ProVobis]

I could see one possible compromise, if the altar was not far from the front row, were the priest could be seen as facing with the people, yet still part of the people. It would have a lessened perception of turning the back. Oh, well, that is just speculation.

Indeed. Like many of the photos taken during the war when Mass was said on the back of a jeep. Cum populo, exactly.

 

[Havard]

I would hope so. But others have stopped going to mass because it’s no longer in Latin or the priest no longer has his back to the people. You will find them regardless. But many would continue still.

FYI: many proponents of ad orientam do not appreciate it being referred to as “the priest’s back to the people.” I would liken it to calling a pro-life stance anti-choice - it’s defining an issue negatively, rather than positively. The ad orientam orientation was defined by its positive character - never by being “away from the people.”

 

[ProVobis]

FYI: many proponents of ad orientam do not appreciate it being referred to as “the priest’s back to the people.” I would liken it to calling a pro-life stance anti-choice - it’s defining an issue negatively, rather than positively. The ad orientam orientation was defined by its positive character - never by being “away from the people.”

Good point about the negativity. I suppose one could extend that argument to “praying in a language no one understood,” “only one cycle of readings,” “only one Eucharistic Prayer,” “only one way of receiving,” etc.

 

[Convert_in_99]

FYI: many proponents of ad orientam do not appreciate it being referred to as “the priest’s back to the people.” I would liken it to calling a pro-life stance anti-choice - it’s defining an issue negatively, rather than positively. The ad orientam orientation was defined by its positive character - never by being “away from the people.”

Thanks for the tip.

I’m not sure how else to describe it. What is least objectionable to you? (I’m assuming you yourself are an EF attendee?)

 

[billy15]

"Havard:

FYI: many proponents of ad orientam do not appreciate it being referred to as “the priest’s back to the people.” I would liken it to calling a pro-life stance anti-choice - it’s defining an issue negatively, rather than positively. The ad orientam orientation was defined by its positive character - never by being “away from the people.”

Thanks for the tip.

I’m not sure how else to describe it. What is least objectionable to you? (I’m assuming you yourself are an EF attendee?)

Well, the best way to describe it would be to say that the priest and congregation are oriented in a common direction, engaged in prayer and adoration. Think of it from the perspective of our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters, specifically the Byzantines and Armenians. They have always celebrated the Holy Sacrifice facing East.

So what if other people perceive such as the priest “having his back to the people?” We just need to let people with such an erroneous understanding know the reasoning behind this orientation, and how it fits in with the tradition of the universal Church. To do so is hardly sophistry. If you told a Byzantine Catholic (for instance, my Ukrainian-Greek Catholic cousin who is a priest) that you weren’t a fan of the priest putting his back to you at Divine Liturgy… he’d probably give a half smile, shake his head, and frankly, be a bit hurt that this is all the ancient tradition has been reduced to.

The following was promulgated by Cardinal Achille Silvestrini back in 1996, on Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Remember, the Byzantines are just as Catholic as we Latins, so there is no sophistry here in this description, just an explanation of why the priest and people face a common orientation:

1. Prayer facing the east…

Saint John of Damascus explains the meaning of this tradition:

: “It is not for simplicity nor by chance that we pray turned toward the regions of the east (…). Since God is intelligible light (1 Jn. 1:5), and in the Scripture, Christ is called the Sun of justice (Mal. 3:20) and the East (Zech. 3:8), it is necessary to dedicate the east to him in order to render him worship…as the Lord himself said: ‘For just as lightning comes from the east and is seen as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be’ (Mt. 24:27). Waiting for him, we prostrate ourselves toward the east. It is an unwritten tradition, deriving from the Apostles.”

This rich and fascinating interpretation also explains the reason for which the celebrant who presides in the liturgical celebration prays facing the east, just as the people who participate. It is not a question, as is often claimed, of presiding the celebration with the back turned to the people, but rather of guiding the people in pilgrimage toward the Kingdom, invoked in prayer until the return of the Lord.

Notice that St. John of Damascus does not mention that facing the East is simply a Byzantine or Syrian tradition… it is an Apostolic tradition. A tradition that is so much more than just reducing it to “a priest with his back to the people”. A lot of Catholics forget our brothers and sisters in the various Eastern Catholic Churches have always faced East, and the parishioners at these parishes seem to understand why. We can only hope more Latin Catholics come to correctly understand the deep significance behind this tradition as well, and leave their misconceptions and preconceptions of why this is done at the door. Hope this helped!

 

[utah_rose]

Well said. I grew up with the Latin Mass and never perceived he was turning his back to the people as we responded several times when he did turn to face the people. We attend both Masses, the traditional in the Low Mass as we prefer less singing and distraction, but I don’t see what would be wrong in the new Mass for the priest to face the altar with his back to the people beginning with the Eucharistic prayer. I think too many times some priests act as performers rather than the celebrant. I know that Vatican 11 wanted laity involved in the Mass but I’m still disturbed with readers (and I am a lector) reading the Epistle and prayers of the Faithful. I wish that only the priest or Deacon would be doing that. But that’s the way it is I guess.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It does seem to rest a lot on perception, doesn’t it?
If a person perceives the priest ad orientem as ‘standing with his back to the people’, he is definitely going to perceive the priest standing ‘facing the people’ as a good and positive thing. "Back to the people’ implies everything from dismissal of the people, an ‘elevation’ of the priest as being somehow ‘better’, a disconnect between priest and people, etc. “Facing the people” implies a connection, a collegiality, a desire to ‘engage’, a ‘togetherness’.

If a person perceives the priest ad orientem as 'facing God at the head of the people", it implies that the priest is yes the leader, but as the leader he is actually leading the people ‘to’ something, as it were. Not only that, but being ‘in front’ he is in a position to protect the people as well. Our military leaders lead from the front, not the rear, and we are in a kind of spiritual war here on earth.

Both “ad orientem” or 'facing East" and “having his back to the people” are two words/phrases that are describing exactly the same action, but have completely different effects on both the people who are saying those words, and the people who are hearing those words.

Something to keep in mind.

 

[JakeWI]

My parents’ Parish started doing ad orientum Ordinary Form Mass on Saturday nights a few months back, probably after Cardinal Sarah’s suggestion. My mom went not thinking or knowing about that tonight. She called me tonight about Christmas gifts and such, but also mentioned that she attended a “High Mass” that she hadn’t experienced for years. She explained how it included incense, a Deacon (in addition to the Priest), and a few more additional servers than usual… which aren’t typical of a usual Mass.

This is coming from someone who isn’t “up” on the Church in what is going on (and someone who I have been pushing to go to confession for some years now), and of course she didn’t know exactly, explaining that it was a High Mass. She is in her 50s, and to her it had a bit more of a sacred feeling than she typically feels.

I am just saying what a “usual, from the pew” person felt about the ad orientum position. Granted it is to each their own (and many may have felt it was the back to the people)… but I found it quite interesting that my mom who grew up with the Ordinary Form/Priest facing the congregation for the most part, thought it felt more sacred to her the way it was done tonight with him facing and using the high altar.

 

[Convert_in_99]

It does seem to rest a lot on perception, doesn’t it?
If a person perceives the priest ad orientem as ‘standing with his back to the people’, he is definitely going to perceive the priest standing ‘facing the people’ as a good and positive thing. "Back to the people’ implies everything from dismissal of the people, an ‘elevation’ of the priest as being somehow ‘better’, a disconnect between priest and people, etc. “Facing the people” implies a connection, a collegiality, a desire to ‘engage’, a ‘togetherness’.

If a person perceives the priest ad orientem as 'facing God at the head of the people", it implies that the priest is yes the leader, but as the leader he is actually leading the people ‘to’ something, as it were. Not only that, but being ‘in front’ he is in a position to protect the people as well. Our military leaders lead from the front, not the rear, and we are in a kind of spiritual war here on earth.

Both “ad orientem” or 'facing East" and “having his back to the people” are two words/phrases that are describing exactly the same action, but have completely different effects on both the people who are saying those words, and the people who are hearing those words.

Something to keep in mind.

Ok thank you!

I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful, I just don’t think of these things sometimes, how others would perceive them.

Oh and thank you too for the information on the counter-reformation in the other thread. Growing up Protestant I didn’t learn much about the other side except the few odds and ends ive read about over the past seventeen years.

 

[Havard]

Thanks for the tip.

I’m not sure how else to describe it. What is least objectionable to you? (I’m assuming you yourself are an EF attendee?)

It’s not personal, I attend the OF. What does matter to me is trying to understand and facilitate understanding of different POV’s. There are too many caricatures out there of what people believe in and not enough explanations of them. God bless.