Mass Facing People

[Catholic4Jesus]

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?

That’s exactly what the Traditionalists claim. I was raised in a very Traditionalist household and am an ex-Traditionalist as of right now. They claimed that the Tridentine Mass was the exact way that the Apostles celebrated mass and that’s how it’s always been done until 1964. The claim that the OF was actually created by Protestants and that its implementation goes against the dogmatic decree of Pope St. Pius V (Quo Primum) in which it supposesdly said that no future Pontiff is allowed to alter the mass.

 

[godisgood77]

That’s exactly what the Traditionalists claim. I was raised in a very Traditionalist household and am an ex-Traditionalist as of right now. They claimed that the Tridentine Mass was the exact way that the Apostles celebrated mass and that’s how it’s always been done until 1964. The claim that the OF was actually created by Protestants and that its implementation goes against the dogmatic decree of Pope St. Pius V (Quo Primum) in which it supposesdly said that no future Pontiff is allowed to alter the mass.

Well, I’ll continue to pray (and debate) …

 

[YoungTradCath]

Now I agree with this and I think it goes both ways… meaning accusations of ‘pre-VII clericalism’ and ‘post-VII banality’. There is true in both and the answer lies in the middle somewhere. Obviously there is a good deal of tension between the two.

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.

Well, given the Tridentine circumstances, it seems to me that a standardized Romanization of things was a wonderful thing. A crackdown was needed, and that is what was had. It worked to prevent more disasters than had already occurred, and with hindsight was probably as good as the Church was capable of.

I am not an opponent of legitimate liturgical diversity. Contrary to popular reckoning, there were huge differences in the Tridentine Mass before Vatican II. It was qualitatively different in France vs. USA, South Carolina vs. Brazil, and so on. I love the Eastern Rites and I am as committed to de-Latinizing them as I am to re-Latininzing the West. What I am opposed to is a entertainment-ization and banalization of the liturgy. Nowadays it seems that a diversification of liturgy means 99% of the time, “Let me do whatever makes me feel good.” Typically what you end up with is a product that is more consistent with its stylistic dictates from place to place than the Tridentine Mass before Vatican II! How ironic, or perhaps not so much.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s exactly what the Traditionalists claim. I was raised in a very Traditionalist household and am an ex-Traditionalist as of right now. They claimed that the Tridentine Mass was the exact way that the Apostles celebrated mass and that’s how it’s always been done until 1964. The claim that the OF was actually created by Protestants and that its implementation goes against the dogmatic decree of Pope St. Pius V (Quo Primum) in which it supposesdly said that no future Pontiff is allowed to alter the mass.

Well all this is just silly nonsense.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

Benedictine’s have had Mass-gathered around a free standing altar with the priest facing his brothers for 1400 years. Augustinian monks celebrate Mass this way too.

The Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyers, Georgia was constructed in the 1940’s and has had Mass celebrated that way since the day it was built. Churches where Mass has been celebrated this way are still standing from the eleventh century.

This is the way many Pope’s have said Mass at St. Peter’s Bassilica for centuries.

-Tim-

 

[godisgood77]

Legitimate diversity? Seems to me that the Church has spoken pretty authoritatively about the liturgy and legitimate forms, no?

We’ll just have to agree to disagree, but let me see if I have this right?

1). Diversity existed pre-Trent
2). Standardization was necessary
3). Diversity existed pre-VII
4). Standardization happened, but was not to your preference?

Not trying to be uncharitable, but tough for my dense intellect to follow.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Much appreciated.

 

[Hasire]

Benedictine’s have had Mass-gathered around a free standing altar with the priest facing his brothers for 1400 years. Augustinian monks celebrate Mass this way too.

The Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyers, Georgia was constructed in the 1940’s and has had Mass celebrated that way since the day it was built. Churches where Mass has been celebrated this way are still standing from the eleventh century.

This is the way many Pope’s have said Mass at St. Peter’s Bassilica for centuries.

-Tim-

That’s different, they are facing the altar with the tabernacle. They’re praying to the East, looking at the Lord.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Benedictine’s have had Mass-gathered around a free standing altar with the priest facing his brothers for 1400 years. Augustinian monks celebrate Mass this way too.

The Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyers, Georgia was constructed in the 1940’s and has had Mass celebrated that way since the day it was built. Churches where Mass has been celebrated this way are still standing from the eleventh century.

This is the way many Pope’s have said Mass at St. Peter’s Bassilica for centuries.

-Tim-

Yes, you say that a lot. Then people counter. Then it is said, “The Church’s liturgy is largely influenced by religious,” or something to that effect, and on and on and on.

That is true. But there are certain aspects of liturgy which are common in religious spheres but which would be quite weird if done in the parish setting, and there are things common in the parish setting but which would be weird if done in the religious setting. So the religious life of the Church does inform the parish liturgy, but it is not true that one size fits all regarding religious liturgy and parish liturgy. Otherwise there would be no distinction. The very fact that there is a difference proves this. And please don’t say something like, “Oh, you just don’t like how religious celebrate Mass.” I am quite fond of monastic celebrations of the EF and I admire monks greatly–see Clear Creek Monastery–but I admit that it would be difficult to justify this manner of celebration in a parish setting.

The relationship of a priest brother to his brothers is qualitatively different from a pastor’s relationship to his parishioners, vastly different. Brothers live in a fraternal communion with one another, whereas the relationship of a pastor to his parishioners seems more like a spiritual father to his children.

So the fact that religious do something and they have done it for a long time does not automatically prove that it works well in the parish setting.

 

[gus]

I’d like to know too. The Roman Church worshiped facing East for 1960 years just as the other Churches. Why start doing differently? It shows nothing but disrespect for an ancient form of worship that even the Holy Apostles practiced.

Are you sure about this?

 

[Leon_Bloy]

I respectfully disagree. The public worship of the Church in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in all the Sacraments has developed throughout the ages. All the required parts of the Mass have remained constant but there have been various rites- approved by the Church and valid-that were different from one another. The Church has the authority entrusted to Her by Christ to govern and adapt the Liturgy as She sees fit. Changing a posture DOES NOT mean that the Church is being disrespectful to the Liturgy. It is sad that Holy Mother Church and Her Magisterium are so often misjudged, mistrusted and bad-mouthed by Her own members. TRUSTING in Jesus’s Church and His continual Presence and guidance is essential. Plain and simple.

But remember, “the Church” did not change the posture. It remains not only possible, but expected, according to the Novus Ordo rubrics, that the priest is facing the altar - even if common practice does not line up with this. If you read the current Roman Ritual (actually, the new translation did not change this from the 1970 version), it says at points during the mass that “the priest then turns towards the people, and says…”

 

[godisgood77]

I’d like to know too. The Roman Church worshiped facing East for 1960 years just as the other Churches. Why start doing differently? It shows nothing but disrespect for an ancient form of worship that even the Holy Apostles practiced.*

Are you sure about this?

I have the same question… are you sure about this? The church in the town I grew up in had a 180 year old church and the altar is on the West side of the building… so if the priest faced the altar, he would be facing west… by facing the congregation, he is now facing east.

On which point do you place more weight - the direction the priest is facing or whether or not he is facing the people?? This debate seems like a colossal waste of time to me… (I’m aware of the irony of my participating by virtue of my post, I’m out of the discussion after today)… I’ll be reallocating my time to the corporal works of mercy instead…

 

[mburn16]

Perhaps we should start installing giant magnifying mirrors behind the altar, then we could keep both sides happy, no?

I agree with whoever above said it…as long as I can actually hear the priest, I don’t particularly care which direction he faces. On one hand, I like to see what is taking place…on the other, there is a mystery offered by something unseen that cannot be fully replicated by what seems more like a performance than a ritual.