How is Vatican II closer to the Early Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iohannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JNB said:
3) I say a mass that has poor liturgical music, be it protestant in nature, or even much of the OCP hymnal, a small army of EMEs and a wishy-washy priest who says nothing in his sermons, and celebrates the mass in a non reverent manner externally starts to lose its sacramental nature. Speak for myself? No, I am telling you what I have seen crusader.
Click to expand...

My sympathies, but I am reminded of something Jesus once said: “Let you who are without sin cast the first stone”. As far as I remember, the pharisees were always having a go at Jesus for ministering to those who were in effect abusers of the law, whether it was moral, religious or common law. Jesus’s most stinging remarks were reserved for these same pharisees, whom he accused of religious pride and letting the law get in the way of their faith.

I think we should all be wary in these forums of falling into the trap of the pharisees. Are hymns any less valid for being protestant in origin, if they express a Christian truth that we, as Catholics, also hold dear? Should we not be thankful for those of our brothers and sisters who devote themselves to the parish by acting as EMEs? After all, they are there to be of service to us all.

As for the priest, on what basis do you judge him to be “wishy-washy” and “non reverent” in his celebration of the mass? Is he perhaps only these things in relation to your own point of view? I ask this because in a later posting you seem to indicate that you are in disagreement with some of the things the church considers lict. So, this priest could be doing everything in keeping with the teachings of the church, and you may still consider him “wishy-washy”.

I ask these questions, because I don’t want to be guilty of judging you myself, without knowing the full story. This way, you can judge for yourself.

Personally, I take Jesus at his word when he said, “I will be with you always, until the end of time.” I have absolute faith that the Holy Spirit is active in the church, and each step we take through time, is a step in the direction of Christ.
 
Since the church says use of EMHCs is lict(Though the Vatican has said use of EMHCs should not be common as it certainly is in North America) I accept as valid. My personal opinion is that use of EMHCs, altar girls, many Protestant style hymns is not prudent, but for this, the burden of responsibilty falls not on the EMHCs, the female altar servers or the musicians themselves, but the Pastors that let these things happen.

As for Pharisee, I am sick of that reference being used time and again, there is a correct way to do things and a wrong way to do things. The fact that belief in the real presence has collapsed, even among Catholics who attend mass has collapsed tells me somthing is terribly wrong, and in my strong opinion, what is wrong is mass has become in too many parishes too horizontal in nature, too much about the community, being inclusive when it needs not to be, and not enough about the worship of God.

I suppose I could close my eyes and be blind to the problems, but I care too much about the church for that, from the lack of vocations, to the lack of belief in the real presence to more Catholics leaving the faith because they dont know what is about, again in part because of the way mass is too often celebrated, somthing needs to be adresssed.
 
40.png
JNB:
I suppose I could close my eyes and be blind to the problems, but I care too much about the church for that, from the lack of vocations, to the lack of belief in the real presence to more Catholics leaving the faith because they dont know what is about, again in part because of the way mass is too often celebrated, somthing needs to be adresssed.
Click to expand...
I have to say that it’s necessary to maintain a balance. Remember that the church you “care too much about” is made up of people, including the lay and clergy whose faith you feel needs to be strengthened and deepened. I agree 100% that leaving the faith is not an option, but I feel that we need to go one step further, and actively evangelise and educate the lukewarm Catholics in our parish.

This is why I originally quoted the incident in John 8:3-11, where the pharisees brought an adulteress, whom the law declared should be stoned, before Jesus for his judgement. Jesus shows us how to deal with our fellow sinners.
  • “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone”: We should consider our own faults, before judging the faults in others;
  • “Neither do I condemn you”: Be merciful and loving;
  • “go, and sin no more”: Do not condemn the sinner for the sin, rather encourage the sinner to abandon the sin.
Lastly, I sense a certain anger behind your postings and I have to caution you against this. In the Bible passage I quoted above, who were the angry ones, Jesus or the pharisees? Righteous anger is understandable and sometimes necessary, as when Jesus himself chased the money-lenders and shopkeepers out of the temple in Jerusalem. But, once again, I come back to what I said about a balance that needs to be kept. Jesus’s overriding command to us was to love our neighbour and it is only through the grace of God, that we achieve this. Therefore, I pray that God will give me the strength and grace to achieve His will in the world today and I urge everyone to do the same.
 
Keith, I will say this, I wont back down from my beliefs. I have a strong belief that the liturgy for 35 years has been lacking the vertical qualities that are needed. Anger, I am angry that so much has been taken away from my generation of Catolics, depressed that so many were lost though the “revelution” that was forced down the throats of so many Catholics? Pharisee? Keith, no, I accept the innovations as valid, I do not think they are prudent, but as long as the church says these innovations are valid, I have no choice but to accept them as valid.

As for Balance, I accept the main liturgical reforms of Vatican II, use of mroe vernacular, more scripture in the missal, I accept and think it should be encouraged that the parishoners take up the responses in the mass that pretain to them, that they pray the mass, I probably would have been considerd a liturgical liberal before Vatican II. What I do not care for is the wholesale change in rubrics such as the near abolishment of the communion rail and just about 100% abolishment of masses celebrated “ad orientum” that has in too many cases cut the liturgy of the church externally at least, from its long held Tradition from the times of the early Christians.
 
Here is a link to a very comprehensive timeline of the evolution & changes to the Mass…from AD 33 - AD 1969.
 
40.png
JNB:
Actually the priest in the early church did not face the people.
Click to expand...
I recall in the catacombs, in one of the Christian shrines, a painting depicting a meeting of Christians, and they were all sitting around a semi-circular table. The celebrant (or “presider”, as Justin Martyr worded it) was at the center of the semi-circle with a loaf and urn in front of him. The loaf and urn suggested Holy Communion. The celebrant did not have his back to the people.

Whether or not the present church resembles the ancient church does not matter, as long as the liturgy conforms to the Holy father’s intent and guide…
 
the_geezer,

The problem with your line of logic is that you can’t compare the church then to now. At that time, persecutions forbid the construction of basilicas or churches. Most liturgies were celebrated at homes. Of course a priest facing the congregation is licit, but you have to accept that the church can develop theology and its liturgy through time. Just because papal infallibility wasn’t defined in the early church doesn’t mean we should do away with it. To somehow return to the disciplines and purity of the early church is to reject that the church can organically grow and develop. This idea is similar to what the protestants believe, that the church is in heresy or that it is more holy then it is now or 50 years ago ( this idea was condemned by Pius X or Pius XII??).

there are plenty of good reasons to have the priest face the altar and not the people (probably already mentioned above); Cardinal Ratzinger supports it. It is more fitting when you offer a sacrifice to face the altar towards God. It is a break in tradition to face the people and the church is fallible when it comes to matters of discipline.
 
Um, I’m new here so I suppose you should take anything I say with a grain of salt… but… It’s not the Council per se that’s a departure from Christian Tradition, but it is the Novus Ordo Missae. Maybe you should examine the Liturgies of St. James, St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom and compare the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo to them. While I realize that we have our own liturgical traditions in the West, these liturgies were used by the undivided Church (pre Orthodox schism), and very closely represent the earliest of Liturgies. You may have noticed that the Orthodox object very strongly to the use of the Novus Ordo, and I think that some of their concerns are legitimate. The very nature of the Mass changed. People became so bent on having “congregational participation” that our venerable Canon was shortened to a few prayers, and although it was not the Council’s intention, the priest has been turned into some kind of spiritual bartender.

Have any of you noticed that there is not a great deal of liturgical abuse within the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox churches? Nor was there a great deal of abuse in the days when the Tridentine Mass was the only Mass of the Roman Rite… Honestly, I think that the ideal solution is to look Eastward and adopt the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches for use by many of our parishes in addition to the Tridentine Mass, which should have primacy since it is to the Latin Church what the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is to the Eastern churches. Just my thoughts.
 
40.png
dutch:
the_geezer,

The problem with your line of logic is that you can’t compare the church then to now. At that time, persecutions forbid the construction of basilicas or churches. Most liturgies were celebrated at homes. Of course a priest facing the congregation is licit, but you have to accept that the church can develop theology and its liturgy through time. Just because papal infallibility wasn’t defined in the early church doesn’t mean we should do away with it. To somehow return to the disciplines and purity of the early church is to reject that the church can organically grow and develop. This idea is similar to what the protestants believe, that the church is in heresy or that it is more holy then it is now or 50 years ago ( this idea was condemned by Pius X or Pius XII??).

there are plenty of good reasons to have the priest face the altar and not the people (probably already mentioned above); Cardinal Ratzinger supports it. It is more fitting when you offer a sacrifice to face the altar towards God. It is a break in tradition to face the people and the church is fallible when it comes to matters of discipline.
Click to expand...
1.) The question was “How is Vatican II closer to the Early Church?”

2.) The altar, or God?
 
The East is aliented by the watering down of our Roman Rite. Of course you can say who gives a darn about them.
At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy and further alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which preceded the Novus Ordo. In compensation, the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak havoc in the Church by poisoning Her organism and by undermining Her unity in doctrine, worship, morals and discipline.
-Cardinal Ottiaviani
Click to expand...
 
The mass celebrated after Vatican II is not closer to the early church. The priest facing the people is a novelty introduced during the implementation of the missal of Paul the VI and is completely foreign to the Roman Rite.

Crusader said:
1.) The question was “How is Vatican II closer to the Early Church?”

2.) The altar, or God?
Click to expand...
  1. If you have a problem with replies going off the subject, you just did the same thing by commenting on it.
  2. From what I’ve read, there are two historical reasons the priest faces towards the altar:
First, ad orietem- facing east, is the posture not only the priest would make but the entire congregation to face the direction of the rising sun. This is why at St. Peter’s basilica-oldest basilicas, the priest faces the people. The nave is on the west side and the entrance is on the east side. The first basilicas were built in this orientation but wasn’t the rule. Eventually the people stopped facing east with the priest. This turning towards the east is still done in some orthodox liturgies.

Second, when offering a sacrifice, one would offer it facing the altar. This is a more natural position and better symbolizes the action taking place. This is common to both Jewish tradition and to eastern Christianity.

Third, the model of recreating the Last Supper during the mass was based on the paintings depicting the Last Supper during the Renaissance. The table Jesus sat at with his disciples in that region during that time was totally different. They were semi-circle shaped, not like a modern dining table, and people faced outwards. More than likely, Jesus didn’t face the apostles during the Last Supper.

Those are just the historical reasons for facing the altar. You can make many more arguments about the dynamics between the priest and the laity with the priest facing the congregation. For one, it shifts emphasis from the sacrificial aspect of the mass which focuses on God, to a celebration of the community.

Claus Gambler or something like that wrote this in “reform of the roman rite”.
 
40.png
dutch:
The priest facing the people is a novelty introduced during the implementation of the missal of Paul the VI and is completely foreign to the Roman Rite.

. More than likely, Jesus didn’t face the apostles during the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
Dutch,

There is a difference between the ‘earliest’ times in the church and later into the more Patristic era. It seems you could be more precise and not as loose in bunching them together. What historical documentation do you have that the priest in the Roman liturgy never, from apostolic times, faced the people? Ad orietem means facing east, not facing an altar. That was implimented later as the liturgy developed.

But your one comment that seems to be historically and biblically off center, is the one about Jesus and the last supper. He was the host at a meal. Did you just mean they all sat in a round or some other position, or semi-circle? You certainly couldn’t have meant that he had his back to his disciples. More specific clarification or documentation would help and not blurring the different centuries in the church all together.
 
Dolly,

Most if not all of the stuff I was trying to explain can be found in:

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: its Problems and Background (Una Voce Press & Foundation for Catholic Reform, 1993), is a translation of two German books by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, whom Cardinal Ratzinger has described as “the great German liturgist”

He dicussed mass facing people in detail and has figures of frescos from the 4th centry or ealier with a semi-circle table of the last supper. Everyone faces away from the table in the picture.

There is nearly no historical accounts of how the mass was celebrated in detail until the 6th century. The problem is people base how Jesus or the early christians celebrated the last supper according to art work done in 16th century.

There is no reason to believe that the tradition of '“facing-east” is not the most ancient posture based on historical evidence. All of the orthodox churches face east to this day. Mass facing the people wasn’t done until the reformation.

Check out the book, it’s pretty good.
 
Dutch,

Thanks for the book reference. The comment that confuses me is your one about (I think the frescos) that ‘everyone faces away from the table’. Was that in reference to prayer, the Eucharist? Guess I didn’t understand that part.
When I was talking about the earliest, ie from the NT times, it was just that originally the Eucharist followed a meal. It doesn’t seem like it would follow form that they would leave the table and the celebrant would turn his back to them.
Jesus could not have had his back to his disciples at the last supper was what I was trying to get across.

Thanks again for the book reference.
 
40.png
dutch:
It is more fitting when you offer a sacrifice to face the altar towards God. It is a break in tradition to face the people and the church is fallible when it comes to matters of discipline.
Click to expand...
So, let me get this straight, God is located behind the altar, but not in the congregation? Please explain this for me, because I am not sure what you mean.

Thanks!
 
Please define what you mean by the Early Church - 1st century, 7th century, 19th century? It seems that some people believe the 1st century is not a valid reference point. If it is not, what is?Perhaps the Holy Spirit really is moving in the church and the changes in the norms are for our spiritual edification.
 
Dolly,

In that book by Klaus Gamber, he describes how the tables then were semi-circle shaped and everyone sat away from the center - I know it sounds weird. I guess they could recline on the bench they sat on and a servant would bring food to them on the straight side of the table. He has a picture of a fresco in the book from the 4th or earlier century which depicts this.
So, let me get this straight, God is located behind the altar, but not in the congregation? Please explain this for me, because I am not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...
I guess what I said is confusing. What I’m basically trying to say is that today mass facing the people is foreign to the Roman Rite. The rising sun of the east represented Jesus’ resurrection to the earlier Christians. When a pagan would sacrifice, they would face the stature or image and offer the sacrifice. Generally, the apse has the images of Jesus. It is a more natural orientation to represent the action taking place.

Cardinal Ratzinger said the liturgy is a gift that we should cherish, not arbitrarily change to the way we see fit. Not to say the church can’t, only there should be good reason to.
 
40.png
Dolly:
But your one comment that seems to be historically and biblically off center, is the one about Jesus and the last supper. He was the host at a meal. Did you just mean they all sat in a round or some other position, or semi-circle? You certainly couldn’t have meant that he had his back to his disciples. More specific clarification or documentation would help and not blurring the different centuries in the church all together.
Click to expand...
The Semitic custom at the time would have demanded that the host and his guests would sit on one side of the table, similar to the way it is depicted in DaVinci’s Last Supper, except that the highest-ranking person at the table would have been on the extreme right of the table, and the rest of the guests in order of rank from right to left. So Our Lord faced the same direction as the Apostles.

There is absolutely no evidence that the priest ever faced the people. None. Even in the basilicas where the priest appears to be facing the people, everyone would have turned to the East during the anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) and, what’s more, the altar would be shielded from the view of the people by the choir screen. There was none of the priest ‘engaging’ the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top