S
stpurl
Guest
Tested in the 1940s, maybe. Didn’t get implemented for a while, and still there is nothing about the ad orientem position needing to be abrogated, right?
- Status
O
on_the_hill
Guest
What happened before my time is not my concern.
And there’s no reason to change it. If they change it, meh. Whatever. I might like it, I might not, but they’re going to do it however they want to and I have no choice but to follow along.
I just don’t want someone coming in and making changes for the sake of some crusade so that a few people can feel like they’ve accomplished something.
S
stpurl
Guest
But the point isn’t like that at all.
This isn’t a ‘power play’ where group A wants to ‘change things up’ so they can crow, "We won this’.
You may not see a reason to change, but others do. Plenty of us who were around in 1970 didn’t like what happened but went along. It’s not that we want to change back so that life magically morphs back to 1969 and everybody is saying groovy and the Beatles are still together blah blah, or that we think bad thoughts about the OF. It’s that, "You know, there is a lot of theology about this question that was taken in a ‘new direction’ back in 1970. Now, nearly 50 years on, we’re looking at that new direction’s results and some things are good and some not so good. One thing that is not so good is the average Catholic’s grasp of the Real Presence. So, let’s explore some of the things that might have had an impact on Catholics. Might it be that having a unity of posture between priest and people when it comes to direction of worship would help the people be more aware of Jesus as “true God’ and not ‘symbol’?”
IF it turns out over say a 5 or 10 year period where some dioceses offer this worship that there is a higher degree of understanding of ‘sacred’ and "Real Presence’ among those Catholics attending than there is in other dioceses, assuming it is a very large sampling and there are no other real differences, then one could have a convincing argument that the ‘direction’ does have meaning.
If it turns out that ‘meh no change’, what exactly would we have ‘lost’? nothing at all.
If it turns out that, "Wait, there is a change for the better’. . .what might we not GAIN?
This isn’t a ‘power play’ where group A wants to ‘change things up’ so they can crow, "We won this’.
You may not see a reason to change, but others do. Plenty of us who were around in 1970 didn’t like what happened but went along. It’s not that we want to change back so that life magically morphs back to 1969 and everybody is saying groovy and the Beatles are still together blah blah, or that we think bad thoughts about the OF. It’s that, "You know, there is a lot of theology about this question that was taken in a ‘new direction’ back in 1970. Now, nearly 50 years on, we’re looking at that new direction’s results and some things are good and some not so good. One thing that is not so good is the average Catholic’s grasp of the Real Presence. So, let’s explore some of the things that might have had an impact on Catholics. Might it be that having a unity of posture between priest and people when it comes to direction of worship would help the people be more aware of Jesus as “true God’ and not ‘symbol’?”
IF it turns out over say a 5 or 10 year period where some dioceses offer this worship that there is a higher degree of understanding of ‘sacred’ and "Real Presence’ among those Catholics attending than there is in other dioceses, assuming it is a very large sampling and there are no other real differences, then one could have a convincing argument that the ‘direction’ does have meaning.
If it turns out that ‘meh no change’, what exactly would we have ‘lost’? nothing at all.
If it turns out that, "Wait, there is a change for the better’. . .what might we not GAIN?
ralfyman
New member
I asked some older relatives who grew up with the EF about this, and interestingly enough they said that they experienced the same: they either prayed the rosary or tried to stay awake until Holy Communion because they could barely see what the priest was doing or hear what he was saying, and if it was in Latin could barely understand it.
D
dochawk
Guest
Abrogated?
The rubrics presume the ad orientum position; it is the norm, not a variation. The rubrics prescribe three (?) points at which the priest turns to face the congregation.
O
otjm
Guest
Having the priest face ad orientem is not going to resolve the issue of the lack of catechesis concerning True Presence. For whatever reason it is being done in a few parishes in San Francisco, unless whoever is proposing it (or within a group which has decided upon the change), we have little information as to what has been the deciding factor in the move.
If it is a perceived notion that ad orientem is somehow “more holy” or “more reverent”, I can attest to weeks after months after years of attending th EF in the 1950’s and early 1960’s which were rushed to an obscene degree and were “ad orientem” - the short of it being that no matter which direction the priest is facing, reverence is not a matter of facing one way or the other. It is a matter of the entire approach to the Mass, and both ways can be reverent. Or not.
If it is a perceived notion that ad orientem is somehow “more holy” or “more reverent”, I can attest to weeks after months after years of attending th EF in the 1950’s and early 1960’s which were rushed to an obscene degree and were “ad orientem” - the short of it being that no matter which direction the priest is facing, reverence is not a matter of facing one way or the other. It is a matter of the entire approach to the Mass, and both ways can be reverent. Or not.
F
Frankie65
Guest
Yes i agree. In Mass i often picture what would happen if Fr suddenly abandoned the centre table and took himself up to the high altar.
I was in the Birmingham oratory (Birmingham England) with a very beautiful ornate high altar. Fr said the ordinary form but up at the high altar ad orientem. Wow
F
Frankie65
Guest
But he might have listened to Cdl Sarah one of the holiest truest most faithful (run out of adjectives) prelates known who advocated for this
F
Frankie65
Guest
You know what I guess that shows how things were failing even before V2.
O
OraLabora
Guest
It’s not prohibited. The question is when it is appropriate. It doesn’t work so well with concelebration, for instance, such as at our abbey where about 15 monk-priests concelebrate around the altar.
The other way to read this is that these three points are mandatory, but the orientation is otherwise optional and determined by the configuration of the place, form of celebration, etc.
I have been to OF Masses where ad orientem is the only way possible, and others where facing the people is all that makes sense. The Missal therefore does not restrict one form or the other, it just prescribes at which three points the celebrant must face the people.
Both orientations are entirely licit, and the use of one or the other should be mandated by circumstances, and not emotion.
Roma locuta est, causa finita est, unless Rome changes its mind. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Not true my friend.
After the council, conciliums were set up to implement the visions/ideas brought forth.
Out of those meetings came instruction, which you can find here.
Specifically, paragraph 91-
91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.
After the council, conciliums were set up to implement the visions/ideas brought forth.
Out of those meetings came instruction, which you can find here.
Specifically, paragraph 91-
91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
Yes thank you. It should be pointed out that this document is dated 1964, one year after the closing of Vatican II. The intent of the reform in this matter could not be clearer, that Mass facing the people was seen as a sufficient enough priority that the altar should, where possible, be designed to accommodate it. It is clearly a response to Sacrosanctum Concilium which as a general guideline called for fuller, active participation of the people.
It was therefore clearly not the codification of an act of disobedience, since in 1964 the Tridentine Mass was still normative.
It was therefore clearly not the codification of an act of disobedience, since in 1964 the Tridentine Mass was still normative.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
I keep the link bookmarked so I can access it quickly when needed. It has come in very handy! 
O
OraLabora
Guest
Great idea! I’m about 2/3 way through Abp. Annibale Bugnini’s book “The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975”. It is a treasure of information on the liturgical reforms. It is often misquoted by those with an agenda. It has also proven helpful in correcting misinterpretations, and providing context.
It also makes clear that the reforms were a very large effort involving many experts and leading churchmen, in addition to eliciting the (name removed by moderator)ut of almost every bishop of that era. It is not the brainchild of a certain element of the Church’s “boogeyman” Abp. Bugnini.
Moreover many of the reforms bear the personal stamp of a saint, St Paul VI. He passed on many hand-written notes and critiques to the Consilium, and made decisive pronouncements on more than one controversial issue.
It also makes clear that the reforms were a very large effort involving many experts and leading churchmen, in addition to eliciting the (name removed by moderator)ut of almost every bishop of that era. It is not the brainchild of a certain element of the Church’s “boogeyman” Abp. Bugnini.
Moreover many of the reforms bear the personal stamp of a saint, St Paul VI. He passed on many hand-written notes and critiques to the Consilium, and made decisive pronouncements on more than one controversial issue.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
This is definitely true but what could aid that would be explanations to parishioners as to why the priest is now saying Mass ad orientem.
It usually is said more reverent. I realize there can be times when priests offering the EF Mass can be disrespectful or rushed. That happens.
I agree. I realize a lot of people say it would more reverent, which is a possibility, but I believe the reverence would come with ad orientem because it will take the attention off of the priest and give it back to God.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Where in the documents of Vatican II was this idea (versus populum) brought forth? If not explicitly in the documents, I stand by my comment that it was “snuck in” in the aftermath of the Council.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Did you not see her link? It was in Inter œcumenici in 1964. It wasn’t “snuck in”. It is indicated there plainly.
Moreover it was not a new idea. It existed, and rubrics for it existed, before the council.
Moreover it was not a new idea. It existed, and rubrics for it existed, before the council.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Did you read the document?
Vatican II was just the beginning. The Constitution on Sacred liturgy was a starting point, not an end point.
Vatican II was just the beginning. The Constitution on Sacred liturgy was a starting point, not an end point.
T
TK421
Guest
In both pictures, the priest is facing Jesus on the altar.
Facing the crucifix on the wall is fine but not important.
Last edited:
- Status