C
Catholic4Jesus
Guest
Was this in a Latin Rite church?
- Status
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Seems to me the best way to solve all problems is just build all Catholic Churches backwards like St. Peter’s Basillica. That way the priest HAS to face the people when he is facing east.
Is that a good enough reason for all the East facing lovers?
If the Pope does this all the time at St. Peter’s–why does anyone have a problem with it?
Would it be possible to have a clear glass tabernacle between the Altar and the people?
That way the priest could be facing the tabernacle and the people–the people would be facing the tabernacle while also looking at the priest–and if you built the church so that east would be the way the priest was facing–then ALL problems would be solved!
With this solution no one could say that the priest would be the center of attention because the tabernacle would be IN BETWEEN the priest and the people!
Is that a good enough reason for all the East facing lovers?
If the Pope does this all the time at St. Peter’s–why does anyone have a problem with it?
Would it be possible to have a clear glass tabernacle between the Altar and the people?
That way the priest could be facing the tabernacle and the people–the people would be facing the tabernacle while also looking at the priest–and if you built the church so that east would be the way the priest was facing–then ALL problems would be solved!
With this solution no one could say that the priest would be the center of attention because the tabernacle would be IN BETWEEN the priest and the people!
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I’m not sure we can truly compare St. Peter’s Basilica to St. Susie parish in the suburbs of Omaha. The Basilica is so massive that it is impossible for the celebrant and people to be focused on each other. Indeed, many of the people are only able to see little specks of gold. Watch a Papal Mass at St. Peter’s and you will see the Pope focusing on absolutely nothing on the altar during the canon except the Missal and the pre- and post-Consecration species. This is not only because he doesn’t care what is going on in the nave at that point, but because he probably can’t see much detail out there anyway.
Contrast that with a random parish somewhere, in which the priest and people are typically close enough to look at each other with some intimacy if facing toward one another. It must be terribly distracting.
On a practical level, my argument essentially rests on the observation that Mass facing the people in most places causes a lot of problems and temptations that are automatically solved if Mass is celebrated with a common orientation. The priest will not be tempted to be the center of attention, the people will not be staring at his face, the “closed circle” thing will be automatically eliminated, visual distractions for the priest will be virtually gone, etc.
P
patrick457
Guest
The thing about St. Peter’s (and some other Roman churches) is that they have a confessio (this area sunk below floor level enabling people to come close to the tomb of the saint buried beneath the altar) immediately in front of and below the altar area, which precludes any possibility of facing the apse. (There is the concept of ‘liturgical East’, where the priest would still face the apse/altar - which symbolizes ‘the East’ - regardless of the church’s actual orientation. Obviously this idea didn’t work in churches like St. Peter’s.) You also have to remember (as I said earlier) that in the early centuries, the celebrant in such churches would still have directly faced no one anyway but the doors since the congregation (segregated into male and female) would have all stood in the side aisles instead of the central nave.
Glass tabernacles…maybe not too bad, but I could see some people going up in arms with that one.
J
jwinch2
Guest
The tabernacle argument is a particularly interesting one. It is my understanding that the Benedictine Tradition has always been to have a side chapel or altar where the Tabernacle is kept rather than having it immediately behind the altar, etc. The Abbey I go to on a regular basis follows this pattern so that when the Monks come in, they bow to the altar and then walk a ways before genuflecting towards the tabernacle. As it is in a side chapel which is open to the nave, the tabernacle is still easily seen and reverenced by those attending Mass and the Monks themselves. Whether this practice was limited to the OSB or was more widespread in the early Church, I cannot say.Glass tabernacles…maybe not too bad, but I could see some people going up in arms with that one.
Facing East because of pious tradition about the direction of Christ’s return, to me, is a better argument.
P
petronus
Guest
Yes .
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
Truly, have you ever heard a priest complain about any temptation to be the center of attention, or the people staring at his face (most priests are far enough away from the people that they couldn’t tell that), or being visually distracted? I have never, ever, heard a priest, and I know plenty of them, complain about any of this. And I have been around a lot longer than you, also. The only people who come up with these things for an excuse are people who don’t like the priest facing the people. Just say you don’t like the priest facing the people and be done with it. That is perfectly acceptable, whereas these other things are totally unproven, speculation, and sound like someone just spent a lot of time thinking up things to prove a point. I really don’t think you have actually observed Mass facing the people causing any of these problems to any great extent. I’m not accusing you of untruths, I’m just saying these things just can’t be objectively measured enough for your claims to be substantiated.
Just say “I am a Traditionalist, I like things the way they were done pre-Vatican II”, and be done with it. Or come up with something that can actually be proved, if you feel you have to argue a point. And BTW, I am not picking on you. The “arguments” presented on this subject are less than convincing that the priest facing the people is the wrong way to go. No one can actually prove any detriment, it’s all speculation, opinion, and wishful thinking. Truly.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Isn’t it true that the Apostles did not celebrate the mass anywhere close to how the Tridentine mass is celebrated? Didn’t they go to the Jewish temple for the a time and then celebrate the Eucharist in each others homes separately fromto avoid persecution?
It intellectually dishonest to position the Tridentine mass as having existed in the form that it did in the 1960’s before Novus Ordo, isn’t it?
G
godisgood77
Guest
Couldn’t disagree more with this idea…the litiurgical minutia has zero impact on the people if it’s not actively chosen and understood by those participating in it. The individual must choose to know God and have their own experience of their faith for it to mean anything.
Think about our Pope’s saying… “Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of church authority,” writes Ratzinger, “stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of church authority.” Our faith and our souls and our consciences are the responsibility of each individual and going through the motions without purpose is of no redeeming value. The Church does not have God, but instead exists to do God’s work on earth and the Church is the People of God.
G
godisgood77
Guest
I corrected my las sentence as it was incoherent in the first post…
Anyway, the simple fact is that the mass changed because an almost total majority of bishops voted to change it (2159-19) and the Pope promulgated those changes. The Holy Spirit was active and our Church father heard and answered the call.
H
Hasire
Guest
Tell me what Rite/Church used Versus Populum before the 60’s. Tell me its theological meaning. Did the Church Fathers faced towards the people and gived their backs to God?
newadvent.org/cathen/13155a.htm
The Roman Rite:
The Roman Rite is the most wide-spread in Christendom. That it has advantages possessed by no other — the most archaic antiquity, unequalled dignity, beauty, and the practical convenience of being comparatively short in its services — will not be denied by any one who knows it and the other ancient liturgies.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Whether of not I can answer either if those questions is irrelevant. The church fathers almost unamiously chose to update the mass and restore the Eucharist to an act rather than a static devotional object (not my words, the churches). I’m loyal to the Church and its teaching.
Relative to the quote from newadvent.org…words like unequalled dignity and beauty are completely subjective. Also relative to the point on practicality, I went to a church that used the ancient liturgy of St John Chrysostom…while I enjoyed it immensely, it was more than 90 minutes.
H
Hasire
Guest
I don’t get it. Are saying that Ad Orientem makes the Eucharist a “static devotional object” and changing it to Versus Populum “restores it to an act”?
Why does the theological meaning of VP is irrelevant? Everything in the Church is supposed to have a theological meaning, if not it’s just superstition. And of course, that theological meaning has to go back to the Church Fathers.
I wasn’t paying attention to the pretty words the Catholic Encyclopedia uses, just the “most archaic anquity” part because it proves my point.
Also, more than 90 minutes? Excellent, the more time, the better.
You should go to St. Basil’s
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
If there is a choice in the building of a new Catholic Church should liturgical east also exactly match geographical east?
I personally don’t have a big problem with priests facing with their backs towards the congregation as long as they are miked up well so the congregation can hear distinctly what they are saying and of course that it be easy for them to turn off the microphones when they are speaking in low tones that the congreagation doesn’t have to hear.
I go to the OF and when I’m there I make it a point not to concentrate on the priest but on the elements or the tabernacle or the crucifix.
I try to concentrate on the priest only during the homily.
Ideally where is the perfect position for the tabernacle–how elevated should it be compared to the altar–how elevated should the altar be to the altar rail and the congregation and if the church were to have a baptistry that was large enough for immersion where ideally should the baptistry be located and where should confessionals be located?
I know there may not be fast and precise rules for these questions and there may be leeway in church architecture.
I became a Catholic in easter of 2011 and am asking these questions to get some traditionalist’s views.
The one thing I miss at the Catholic churches I attend is an altar rail. Before I was Catholic I was Methodist and WE had altar rails. It really baffled me that most Catholic churches do not have them–at some Catholic churches they say they used to have them but they were taken away after Vatican II.
If a Catholic church like that wanted to reinstall them what would be the process? Would they just need permission from their diocesan bishop?
I do like Catholic Churches where the choir is in the balcony in the rear of the church.
I also like churches that have a large area outside the sanctuary and a good cry room for infants. It’s nice when the sanctuary can be quiet.
It’s also nice when some sunlight can filter into the church.
I personally don’t have a big problem with priests facing with their backs towards the congregation as long as they are miked up well so the congregation can hear distinctly what they are saying and of course that it be easy for them to turn off the microphones when they are speaking in low tones that the congreagation doesn’t have to hear.
I go to the OF and when I’m there I make it a point not to concentrate on the priest but on the elements or the tabernacle or the crucifix.
I try to concentrate on the priest only during the homily.
Ideally where is the perfect position for the tabernacle–how elevated should it be compared to the altar–how elevated should the altar be to the altar rail and the congregation and if the church were to have a baptistry that was large enough for immersion where ideally should the baptistry be located and where should confessionals be located?
I know there may not be fast and precise rules for these questions and there may be leeway in church architecture.
I became a Catholic in easter of 2011 and am asking these questions to get some traditionalist’s views.
The one thing I miss at the Catholic churches I attend is an altar rail. Before I was Catholic I was Methodist and WE had altar rails. It really baffled me that most Catholic churches do not have them–at some Catholic churches they say they used to have them but they were taken away after Vatican II.
If a Catholic church like that wanted to reinstall them what would be the process? Would they just need permission from their diocesan bishop?
I do like Catholic Churches where the choir is in the balcony in the rear of the church.
I also like churches that have a large area outside the sanctuary and a good cry room for infants. It’s nice when the sanctuary can be quiet.
It’s also nice when some sunlight can filter into the church.
G
godisgood77
Guest
I’m saying that my opinion on this matter (and yours, frankly) is irrelevant. Our church fathers have spoken authoritatively on the matter and the essence of what they said is that it makes no difference which way the priest is facing.I don’t get it. Are saying that Ad Orientem makes the Eucharist a “static devotional object” and changing it to Versus Populum “restores it to an act”?
Why does the theological meaning of VP is irrelevant? Everything in the Church is supposed to have a theological meaning, if not it’s just superstition. And of course, that theological meaning has to go back to the Church Fathers.
I wasn’t paying attention to the pretty words the Catholic Encyclopedia uses, just the “most archaic anquity” part because it proves my point.
Also, more than 90 minutes? Excellent, the more time, the better.
You should go to St. Basil’s
Theologically, the Church fathers said thought on the Eucharist should be restored to thinking of it as an action vs. a static devotional object. That is a change implemented in VII and a reversion back to how early church fathers thought of it. Obviously, there has been a tremendous amount of debate on how this is conveyed stylistically in the mass whether Tridentine or Novo Ordus. It’s a matter of preference and the fact that we have the Tridentine Mass, the Novo Ordus, the various liturgies of the Eastern Rites and hundreds of different languages to accommodate so that the People of God can actively participate, should not and, in fact, does not change the theological meaning.
Yep… it was at least 90 minutes. Romanian Byzantine… it was GREAT!!
P
ProVobis
Guest
Do you have a source for this? I would like to know exactly how they celebrated Mass in the first century, whether it was done in the Holy of Holies style or Christianized pagan style. If it was done in the catacombs style, it would have been tough to do it ad populum.
G
godisgood77
Guest
I’ll look it up when I get home … it was in a video series on the history of the Church conducted by a Prof from Geneseo NY named William Cook. I believe it was put out by The Teaching Company.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Well, no, that would be a really bad argument. =p
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I don’t understand what Mass orientation has to do with conscience…
Anyway, what I mean is that the faithful do not have to have an active and absolute understanding of every little bit of every rubric, every word, every action, for these things to have an impact on them. Otherwise, how could poor European farmers in 1687 have experienced spiritual goodness from the Mass? Just a rhetorical question. Is it good to understand a deeper level of things? Yes, I don’t see why not. But to say that if everyone doesn’t know every little thing about everything then they will not be able to have a true spiritual experience… well, that strikes me as dangerously close to a type of “you must participate in everything even if you’re not supposed to participate in it and if you don’t you’re so ‘pre-Vatican II’” clericalism.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Now I agree with this and I think it goes both ways… meaning accusations of ‘pre-VII clericalism’ and ‘post-VII banality’. There is truth in both and the answer lies in the middle somewhere. Obviously there is a good deal of tension between the two.I don’t understand what Mass orientation has to do with conscience…
Anyway, what I mean is that the faithful do not have to have an active and absolute understanding of every little bit of every rubric, every word, every action, for these things to have an impact on them. Otherwise, how could poor European farmers in 1687 have experienced spiritual goodness from the Mass? Just a rhetorical question. Is it good to understand a deeper level of things? Yes, I don’t see why not. But to say that if everyone doesn’t know every little thing about everything then they will not be able to have a true spiritual experience… well, that strikes me as dangerously close to a type of “you must participate in everything even if you’re not supposed to participate in it and if you don’t you’re so ‘pre-Vatican II’” clericalism.
My point was simply that the people should understand and participate in the majority of the liturgy not that they have to understand each and every rubric. I brought conscience into the discussion because I believe that giving the laity the ability and responsibility to participate actively - to purposefully participate - was a fundamental driver for the reversion of the liturgy.
Either way… there are many options to choose from… whether it be Tridentine, Novus Ordo, any of the Eastern Liturgies and hundreds of languages. In hindsight, the reactionary homogenization of the mass after Trent could be seen as exactly what you warn against…forcing everyone person, diocese and culture to worship exactly the same way whether they understand or not… that strike me as dangerous.
- Status