Lets talk ad orientem

[otjm]

The attention is on the priest either way. Some people seem to have difficulty seeing the priest’s face during the Mass, and in particular during the Consecration. That has noting to do with reverence.

And if one wants to play spin games, The priest is an Alter Christus, so it could be just as easily said that seeing the priest’s face instead of his back goes clear back to the Last Supper.

The short of it is that we are dealing with a subjective, not objective issue, and that is people’s feelings. Feelings are not reverence; they are emotions. Reverence is as reverenced does, not as reverence feels.

As to “It usually is said more reverent.” I disagree. A priest is no more reverent whether you are looking at him from behind him, in front of him, or off to one side. How he acts is the reverence, not which direction he faces.

I go back to the (impossible) time machine. I strongly suspect that if some people were transported back in time to the Last Supper they would be very loud critics of how it was conducted.

Explaining why the priest is ad orientem misses the issue below all this chatter, and that is the lack of catechesis as to the True Presence. Explaining that the priest is facing East (which in likely most circumstances he is not - and I invite anyone to find in Magisterial documents the term “Liturgical East”) has no catechetical relationship to informing them of their lack of knowledge. In short, it does absolutely nothing to solve the underlying problem.

 

[dochawk]

Facing the crucifix on the wall is fine but not important.

that has nothing to do with the reason the priest faced East.

East is the direction from which Christ is traditionally expected to return. That is why the priest has traditionally faced that way, and why the altar is there. The crucifix at that location is the consequence, not the reason . . .

 

[maryjk]

Just my two cents.

We have what would be called a normal Ordinary Form Mass. Very simply, say the black, do the red.

During Lent, we add some Latin. And the priest faces the crucifix. It isn’t East, for us it is West. That is how the property sits.

Then during Easter Vigil, everything goes back to normal.

During Lent, in my opinion, our poor priest looks like he is on a turntable. Face forward, now turn around. Oops, back to the front. Sit down. Stand up, facing the people, turn around, now back around. Sorry, but it was crazy watching him.

 

[otjm]

Well, somewhere in the 400 years after Trent, the issue of why the priest faced the way he did was lost to general catechesis, as it certainly was not being taught to most of us then.

The issue of transubstantiation (which was taught back then) is neither enhanced nor detracted from by the direction the priest faces. The bishops going into the Council were not unaware that there had become a rather wide gulf between the priest on the altar and the laity on the other side of the altar rail; they were not unaware that large numbers of laity attended Mass by saying their rosaries or attending to pamphlets of novenas; there were reasons that bells were used because without them, a significant part of the laity present would have no idea what was happening. It was not unusual when asked why the priest faced the way he did, to be told that he faced the tabernacle.

Lost in the mists of time was the fact that the Church did not have tabernacles until the 9th century, and it took another century for them to be in the church; and as Ora Laboratory pointed out above, in abbeys they were on a side altar; and in many cathedrals in Europe you would find them off to the side in an open adjacent space specific for that, or on a side altar.

And the bishops gathering were not unaware of liturgical research and practice which had been building since Pope Pius 12th moved it forward from its beginnings with Pope Pius 10th (with the document Tra Le Sollecitudini), nor were they unaware of what the potential changes looked like. It was not for no reason that the vote on Sacrosanctum Concilium passed 2,147 to 4. SC did not specify each and every change expected or looked forward to; but neither was this some sort of loosey goosey “Do whatever you like” document. There had been 14 months since the start of the first session in October 1962; the vote was on December 4, 1963.

Neither was it something rushed through. The hope had been that there would be sufficient support that SC would receive yes votes from 2/3s of the bishops. The result was nearly unanimous.

What was not anticipated was that in the U.S. the Baltimore catechism would be effectively tossed out, and replaced with pablum. That occurred around 1970, or nearly 50 years ago; or another way to say it is 2 and a half generations ago. Turning the priest around is not going to teach anyone anything in particular about True Presence, and associating it with that is far more likely to result in people, who don’t get it now, thinking that the direction of the priest has something to do with whether or not Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. further, it introduces more changes (and there has been enough grousing about the change, for example, in the Creed.

I have had the privilege pf four priests in my prior parish and one in my new parish, all of whom are clearly reverent. Turning them around would accomplish exactly zero.

 

[ProVobis]

At one parish I used to frequent, the pastor decided to say the OF Mass ad orientem one Christmas Eve, only to be criticized by several for doing that. To which he merely thought “What’s the point?” So the following Christmas he said the EF. No one complained further as far as I know.

 

[maryjk]

Thankfully, our priest explained what he was going to be doing. And that it was just for lent.

Much like @on_the_hill, although I see no reason to change it, the priests are going to do what they do. I have no say.

On that note, I didn’t say anything to our priest about looking like he was on a turntable.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Speaking of Catholics having issues-- how could it be otherwise, when things that were mandated for centuries, were outlawed in just a few years in the 1960s?

 

[OraLabora]

Ora Laboratory

For once, auto-correct is not inaccurate… I headed a laboratory for many years,

Speaking of Catholics having issues-- how could it be otherwise, when things that were mandated for centuries, were outlawed in just a few years in the 1960s?

Nothing was “outlawed” nor abrogated. A new order was established for the both the Mass and the Divine Office, with changes to the calendar. Saint Paul VI, with great humanity, allowed older clergy to continue to use the older usages, recognizing how hard it is to change late in life.

Eventually, since nothing was in fact abrogated, Saint John Paul II allowed greater use of the older Mass, and Benedict XVI further removed restrictions. Even if the ordinary usage is what was implemented by St. Paul VI, the older usage or extraordinary form remains legal and licit to use.

Again, nothing was outlawed. The normative usages were changed.

This is most unlike what Pius X did with the Tridentine Divine Office. Overnight, it was abrogated and illicit to use. St. Paul VI never did that.

 

[Peeps]

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.

This is interesting. I didn’t grow up Catholic, but after we converted, I did talk to older Catholics, and to a man (or woman), they said the same thing as you heard. They LOVE the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

It seems that it is mainly younger people who didn’t grow up with a Latin Mass who want a Latin Mass.

So…is it possible that this is because of the fragmented, hyper-everything, Coke-A-Cola, craft beer instead of manufactured, 2-jobs-but-never-enough-money-to-pay-bills, credit card, college debt, polluted, global warming, urban, over-fed, under-dressed, hyper-sexualized, NOISY, Netflix, online world that younger people long for a sotto voce Mass with no music, lots of silence, and incense?

Not saying there’s anything wrong with this, other than we all need to remember that it’s not what we WANT, but what Holy Mother Church approves.

Interesting, for those of us who grew up and spent years as Evangelical Protestants, the Ordinary Form with its St. Louis Jesuits hymns is quaint, oldl-fashioned, peaceful, mellow, and very reverent. Not noisy and jarring at all, compared to a 20-minute Praise and Worship time, a 45-minute sermon, a testimony time by the congregation, and lots of visuals.

 

[Minks]

@OraLabora

Again, nothing was outlawed. The normative usages were changed.
This is most unlike what Pius X did with the Tridentine Divine Office. Overnight, it was abrogated and illicit to use. St. Paul VI never did that.

Latin Masses may not have been officially abrogated or outlawed. Big whip! They were unavailable in the days of the upending of the Church as we knew it, and those who asked for Latin Masses, except, perhaps, in a few very rare cases, were adamantly denied, so they might as well have been officially outlawed, especially since some bishops were rather tyrannical, even to the point of reference to schism.

Were it not for the Internet and instant, worldwide access to the doings in Rome, we’d likely still have almost no Latin Masses in the US, because it was difficult to get VII update in those days. Many pre-Vatican II era people felt that their bishops had lied to them when it became widespread knowledge that the Latin Mass had, in fact, not been abrogated, because they definitely had been led to believe that Latin Masses were no longer possible.

Gradually, following word that Latin Masses could be approved by bishops, some dioceses scheduled one at such times as 6:30 AM on Sunday morning, and maybe only once a month. To read on different threads that they are scheduled at such inopportune times because no one is interested is extremely irritating to me. They’re scheduled at those times to discourage attendance, plain and simple.

Read independent Catholic newspapers from about 1963 forward for a better feel of the angst and hurting hearts of the faithful who went with the flow, rather than be branded as heretic for not falling into line. If you read old diocesan newspapers, keep in mind that they printed only letters that were approved by the bishops.

Our priest was clearly aghast. He told us that we’d have one explanatory meeting with questions and answers, and after that, that we’d need to leave the premises if we wanted to discuss it, because the bottom line was obedience. He was never again the happy, ebullient priest that he’d been before what I still regard as the beginning of the dismantling of the Church.

When Pope Pius X changed the Tridentine Divine Office, he didn’t go on to change every aspect of life: the buildings, outward signs of reverence, standards of behavior at Mass, etc, as well as the Office.

I’ve seen here, repeatedly, that our buildings and Masses look and feel Catholic to converts, but to many of those steeped in pre-VII, they look and feel far less Catholic than they did before the physical changes alone: new building designs, old building revamps, disappearance of the stations, statues, and large crucifix on the wall behind the altar (usually swapped out for a plain cross or a resurrected Christ), the selling of statues at yard sales and auctions, the disappearance of communion rails and kneelers, fasting changes, and campfire guitar attempts at music, and priests coming down the aisles glad-handing parishioners during the new kiss of peace.

Changing the Mass was only the first step in changing the experience of being Catholic.

 

[Mi_Rose]

I’m in my late sixties and evryone on my family was thrilled with the changes including my grandmother who was born in 1902.

 

[CilladeRoma]

This is also my experience. I do not know of anyone who was raised in the pre-VII church (specifically the 1920-1960’s) that would want to go back to those days.
Some of them miss some of the traditions, but for the most part there was never any of the angst that @Minks describes, except maybe for a very small minority.

 

[Gorgias]

In both pictures, the priest is facing Jesus on the altar.

Except the Lord is not on the crucifix but on the altar.

Except that, at this point in the Mass, only bread and wine is on the altar, and the only Eucharist present is in the tabernacle. Which, of course, is normatively located in the high altar / center rear of sanctuary.

More to the point, in the ad orientem graphic, the priest celebrant is leading the prayer on behalf of the people, standing at their head.

Facing the crucifix on the wall is fine but not important.

You might find the document The Crucifix at the Center of the Altar, on the Vatican website, of certain interest. It makes the point that the crucifix normatively is the center of the Eucharistic celebration. So… “important” and not only “fine”.

I invite anyone to find in Magisterial documents the term “Liturgical East”

You’d find it in liturgical documents, not magisterial ones.

This is also my experience. I do not know of anyone who was raised in the pre-VII church (specifically the 1920-1960’s) that would want to go back to those days.

And… that’s the problem, right there! Anything that has any feature in common with the pre-Vatican-II church is perceived as “going back to the old days.”

Wait till the generation who remembers the “old days” are gone; at that point, this particular sensitivity (and resistance to reversion) will be gone, too. Maybe the generations who follow us will “sing a new church into being” …and do it in Latin. Maybe not. Who knows…

 

[OraLabora]

You’d find it in liturgical documents, not magisterial ones.

I have a 1935 Ceremonial and have yet to come across the term in it.

 

[CilladeRoma]

And… that’s the problem, right there! Anything that has any feature in common with the pre-Vatican-II church is perceived as “going back to the old days.”

Nice cherry pick of my comment. There are some things that were “lost” that are missed.

However, most people also understand that the world is different and that the parish church is not the center of the universe like it was then.
In the grand scheme of things, going back to all Latin, all the time, 12-hour fasts before receiving the Eucharist, the rushed Masses (the parish my Mom grew up in had Mass every hour, 6am, 7am, 8am, 9am 10am every Sunday), no encouragement at all to read Scripture and just “pray, pay, obey” would be the last thing that could help our Church.

 

[Gorgias]

Nice cherry pick of my comment.

Huh? I simply responded to something you wrote, because I felt it was highly representative of a dynamic that’s in play in this discussion.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Except that, at this point in the Mass, only bread and wine is on the altar, and the only Eucharist present is in the tabernacle.

Jesus is also present in the people.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I did say some things are missed, but in general, no one wants to go back to those times.
You make it sound like I said no one wants anything pre-VII, and that is simply not true.

 

[JimG]

Well, we’ve gone from Mass every hour to every 1 1/2 hours. My parish has Sunday Mass at 7:00, 8:30, 10.00, 11:30, and 1:00.

 

[CilladeRoma]

That still gives 30 minutes between Masses that are 1 hour long.

Most Masses my mom grew up with were 30-40 minutes. Sounds pretty rushed to me.