How did Masses before Vatican Council II work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidetrack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sidetrack

Guest
I’ve heard that before Vatican Council II the priest would say the whole Mass in Latin with his back to the people.Why is that?.Would they also do this when they were interperting scripture?.If a person was use to hearing the priest say Mass in Latin would they eventually catch on with what they were saying when they were adults after hearing it so many time?.
 
I’ve heard that before Vatican Council II the priest would say the whole Mass in Latin with his back to the people.Why is that?.Would they also do this when they were interperting scripture?.If a person was use to hearing the priest say Mass in Latin would they eventually catch on with what they were saying when they were adults after hearing it so many time?.
Best is to attend an EF mass and see for yourself!

In lieu of that; Yes the Mass is in Latin, he is addressing our Lord with the people, Ad Orientum, rather than addressing the people; on Sunday and Holy Days the scripture is read in Latin and repeated in the vernacular from the albo(lectern) before the sermon; most of us use a Latin/English(Spanish, whatever) Missal to follow along.
 
I’ve heard that before Vatican Council II the priest would say the whole Mass in Latin with his back to the people.Why is that?.Would they also do this when they were interperting scripture?.If a person was use to hearing the priest say Mass in Latin would they eventually catch on with what they were saying when they were adults after hearing it so many time?.
Don’t forget that the priest would say most of the Mass in a low voice inaudible to the congregation.
 
I’ve heard that before Vatican Council II the priest would say the whole Mass in Latin with his back to the people.Why is that?.Would they also do this when they were interperting scripture?.If a person was use to hearing the priest say Mass in Latin would they eventually catch on with what they were saying when they were adults after hearing it so many time?.
The priest does not have his back to the people - he is facing Christ in the Eucharist along with the people. They are praising God together. The Mass is more Eucharist centered when the priest is facing East, and less “priest centered” or “people centered”.

~Liza
 
The priest does not have his back to the people - he is facing Christ in the Eucharist along with the people. They are praising God together. The Mass is more Eucharist centered when the priest is facing East, and less “priest centered” or “people centered”.

~Liza
Sorry, I don’t want to criticize but this is just a play on semantics. Yes, he is facing East with the people, but from the people’s perspective the back of the priest is facing them.

By the way, in versus populum, the Eucharist is on the altar and the priest is facing the Eucharist there. So he is still facing the Eucharist and facing the people as well.
 
By the way, in versus populum, the Eucharist is on the altar and the priest is facing the Eucharist there. So he is still facing the Eucharist and facing the people as well.
In a usual New rite Mass the Eucharist is on the altar only about 10 minutes out of the over an hour celebration: from the words of the consecration till the communion .

Also what is deeper problem on the rest of the time either the priest or the whole congregation turn his back to the Eucharist in the tabernacle where our Lord is present in physical reality.

The priest turning his back to the people means that he leads them to Christ, who is the center of our worship.
 
Sorry, I don’t want to criticize but this is just a play on semantics. Yes, he is facing East with the people, but from the people’s perspective the back of the priest is facing them.
Ok, but to the person in the second row, the back of the people in the first row is facing them. It doesn’t seem rude in that case, does it?
 
The priest does not have his back to the people - he is facing Christ in the Eucharist along with the people. They are praising God together. The Mass is more Eucharist centered when the priest is facing East, and less “priest centered” or “people centered”.

~Liza
Correct.
 
Don’t forget that the priest would say most of the Mass in a low voice inaudible to the congregation.
Just a reminder to all:
Council of Trent:
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.
 
Just a reminder to all:
Are you embarrassed by the fact that practically none of the Mass is audible, so you need to make sure that no one brings it up? After all, the OP asked if people would get accustomed to all the texts by hearing them so often, and the truth is that most of the texts they would probably never hear – from the prayers at the foot of the altar, through the consecration, all the way up to the Last Gospel.

It would be like if I were a fan of modern, abstract vestments, and so I went around to every “bad vestments” thread and posted:
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
You know, just as a cordial “reminder to all.” A friendly anathema.
 
It would be like if I were a fan of modern, abstract vestments, and so I went around to every “bad vestments” thread and posted:
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
You know, just as a cordial “reminder to all.” A friendly anathema.
That canon doesn’t cover modern, abstract vestments.
 
… this is just a play on semantics. Yes, he is facing East with the people, but from the people’s perspective the back of the priest is facing them.
Well then, the people in the pews in front of me are celebrating Mass with their backs to me, and I take offense at that.
 
I’ve heard that before Vatican Council II the priest would say the whole Mass in Latin with his back to the people.
After Vatican Council II the priest can still celebrate the whole Mass in Latin with “his back to the people”, i.e. he can still celebrate Mass ad orientem. This includes celebrating the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (often referred to by many as the Novus Ordo (NO) of Pope Paul VI). It isn’t limited to the Extraordinary Form (often called the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) or the Tridentine Mass).
 
That canon doesn’t cover modern, abstract vestments.
The most abstract vestments I’ve seen date to the 1920’s… beautiful black velvet fiddleback, with extensive silver-threat blackwork-type embroidery… in what appeared to be random swirls. With colored beads worked in. Almost randomly.

A blue, silver and violet gothic chasuble from the same timeframe… the blue being moire silk for the orphrey… and little somethings all over in silver. Can’t tell what. Purple wool base.

I’ve seen photos of a 1930’s fiddleback adapted from a rainbow serape… trimmed to size, then an orphrey added.
 
After Vatican Council II the priest can still celebrate the whole Mass in Latin with “his back to the people”, i.e. he can still celebrate Mass ad orientem. This includes celebrating the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (often referred to by many as the Novus Ordo (NO) of Pope Paul VI). It isn’t limited to the Extraordinary Form (often called the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) or the Tridentine Mass).
Yes. I attend every Sunday New rite mass where the priest faces the altar (his back toward the people) . This is new mass, in English and to be read or chant aloud. ( stpetervolo.org/ )

Also as a matter of fact the free standing (people facing) altar was allowed in 1964 and introduced first in 1965 for the Traditional Latin Mass, were the priest read the Mass (on that time with the exception of the readings) in Latin and the Canon is soto (inaudible) voice.

I personally like the new rite, it expresses better the theology of the Mass (We gather, learn and offer what we have; Jesus Christ sacrifices himself, feeds us and sends us to show him to the world). The free standing altar is not essential part of that. The priest is supposed to lead us, so he is the first and we go behind him to Christ…
 
I’ve heard that before Vatican Council II the priest would say the whole Mass in Latin with his back to the people.Why is that?.Would they also do this when they were interperting scripture?.If a person was use to hearing the priest say Mass in Latin would they eventually catch on with what they were saying when they were adults after hearing it so many time?.
It is important to remember why before Vatican II took place that mass was in Latin for so long instead of vernacular. Same goes with the priest with his back to the people and facing God. I am not saying that the Latin mass is wrong or the new mass is either. There is a book called this is mass by Henri David Ropps and the mass is celebrated by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Of course this is pre-Vatican II book, so this should be of help to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top