Mass facing the people - why has it become so predominant?

[on_the_hill]

I never did like the Priest facing the people. It becomes a closed circle, almost like a performance by the Priest. When Mass is celebrated Ad Orientem; we are all facing the same way offering the Mass up to God.

Not to be facetious, but how do we know that that’s where God is? Maybe God is in the other direction. It would be helpful if he waved and said, “Hey! I’m over here!” but he doesn’t do that in any tangible manner.

We could get metaphysical with this and say, “God is standing next to us. God is standing behind us. God is sitting beside of the homeless person at the bus stop. God is kneeling beside the hungry child. Where should we face when we serve God?”

But in terms of the Mass–does it really matter that much? Based on CAF, I’ve been lucky **not **to experience some of the loosey-goosey Masses people post about. I’ve only experienced reverent, proper, appropriate Masses in the Ordinary Form. In my lifelong experience, there’s nothing improper about the priest facing the people.

And certainly, if the priest has his back to the people, there’s no more reason to believe that ad orientem would make the Mass more holy, and there *is *reason to believe that people would feel detached, as if they’re watching the priest pray rather than being themselves engaged participants.

In the style of facing the people (forming a figurative circle) I get the sense that God is in our midst.

 

[DebChris]

…
In the style of facing the people (forming a figurative circle) I get the sense that God is in our midst.

This is my experience of the Mass. We are called to the Table of the Eucharist.
It is a Thanksgivings (that’s what Eucharist means) celebration.
Mass comes from missa, the words used at the end when we are sent out to serve.

None of that takes away from the two separate parts of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of Eucharist. We are nourished by both.
The Mass is prayed in community. Each of us are members of the Body of Christ.

 

[phil19034]

Not to be facetious, but how do we know that that’s where God is? Maybe God is in the other direction. It would be helpful if he waved and said, “Hey! I’m over here!” but he doesn’t do that in any tangible manner.

We could get metaphysical with this and say, “God is standing next to us. God is standing behind us. God is sitting beside of the homeless person at the bus stop. God is kneeling beside the hungry child. Where should we face when we serve God?”

tawny didn’t say everyone is facing God. The post stated, “When Mass is celebrated Ad Orientem; we are all facing the same way offering the Mass up to God.”

But in terms of the Mass–does it really matter that much? Based on CAF, I’ve been lucky **not **to experience some of the loosey-goosey Masses people post about. I’ve only experienced reverent, proper, appropriate Masses in the Ordinary Form. In my lifelong experience, there’s nothing improper about the priest facing the people.

I’ve experienced both. When the the priest is not “acting,” I see no issue with him facing us. But I’ve also seen some priests do something at the altar that are a little distracting.

And certainly, if the priest has his back to the people, there’s no more reason to believe that ad orientem would make the Mass more holy, and there *is *reason to believe that people would feel detached, as if they’re watching the priest pray rather than being themselves engaged participants.

In the Ordinary Form, there are many times where the priest or bishop would turn around and face the pews. Mother Angelica’s funeral mass was very beautiful and Archbishop Chaput turned around many times. Was watching it on TV, and didn’t feel disconnected.

In the style of facing the people (forming a figurative circle) I get the sense that God is in our midst.

The theological problem with this statement is that we should get teh sense that God is in our midst because of the Eucharist is present. When the Tabernacle is behind the altar and the candle is lit, I personally prefer Ad Orientem so the priest and Deacon do not have their backs to Jesus the whole time. To me, Ad Orientem helps emphasize the real presence (assuming the Tabernacle is on the high altar)

As a side bar: I’ve also hear my priest (who would never do Ad Orientem on a freestanding altar) say that the Extraordinary Form was far more organized for Mass because the Mass Cards were lined up nicely and there was no flipping through the Roman Missal. Also, the priest didn’t have to cock his head to the side while praying the Mass to look at the Missal.

When I was a kid in the 1980s and early 1990s, our Pastor placed the Missal directly in front of him so his head was straight the whole time. But today, it seems that all priests place the missal to the side, so their head is cocked sideways during the Eucharistic Prayers

God Bless

 

[Solomonson]

As Catholics, we do not merely attend Mass, we participate in the Mass.
Before Vatican II, it was not uncommon for some individuals to pray the rosary during Mass rather participate fully in the Mass.

The first part of the Mass is the Liturgy of Mass is the Liturgy of the Word, and second The Liturgy of the Eucharist. We are present at the Last Supper, at Calvary.

The priest also has fuller control of what is happening within the church when he faces the congregation. I have seen this in action at a parish to which I belonged.

1. Case #1 An intoxicated individual rushed the altar. The priest placed himself between man and the altar until the ushers could escort the individual out of the church.It is only because the priest was facing the congregation and did not have his back turned that he was able to take this defensive stance of the altar.
2. Case #2 A woman became ill during Mass. At the end of Holy Communion, Father was able to anoint the woman as the EMT’s rolled her out of the church. This was all done without any disruption to the order of the Mass.

I do not remember when the Mass originally historically turned from facing the congregation to the priest with his back to the congregation. The priest will continue to face the altar for devotions such as Eucharistic Adoration. This is as it should be.

You make some salient points. Some lionize the celebration of the EF Mass back in the day. In reality most celebrations were extremely rushed (that legacy is still felt today in some parishes) and unintelligible (due to language, speed and physical orientation.)

I have actually heard the praying of the Rosary during Mass being defended on EWTN! Just imagine if that tradition would have started with the coming of the OF Mass. EWTN’s comments would have been far different in my estimation.

 

[phil19034]

I have actually heard the praying of the Rosary during Mass being defended on EWTN! Just imagine if that tradition would have started with the coming of the OF Mass. EWTN’s comments would have been far different in my estimation.

some people (i wager a lot of people) don’t pray the mass silently with the priest, the simply watch or daydream.

Personally, I do not pray the Rosary during Mass, even at an Extraordinary Form Mass. However, I would wager that it is better for one to pray the Rosary (at the OF or EF) during Mass than not pray at all or daydreaming during Mass

 

[edwest2]

I was there before and after Vatican II and certain misconceptions have appeared. As far as the Mass being rushed, that was never true. The Mass took the same amount of time every single time. Missals were available that had the Latin and English on the same page. We knew what we were saying.

As far as the priest facing the people, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a book titled The Spirit of the Liturgy. An excerpt:

“The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning towards the East was not a ‘celebration towards the wall’; it did not mean that the priest ‘had his back to the people’: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together ‘towards the Lord.'”

“As one of the Fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J. A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession towards the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us.”

As Pope Benedict, he knew that the people wanted the form of the Mass that was dear to them. Regarding the new form: “Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

In context:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Ed

 

[edwest2]

To answer the question more fully, it should be known that the late 1960s and 1970s were the ‘golden age’ of dissent in the Catholic Church. Communion rails and altar rails were removed. The Tabernacle which should have been placed on the altar at the end of the center aisle was put wherever. Statues and even a painting were removed.

Recently, all of these things are being restored. Churches are being renovated to the way they were before the late 1960s. This is confirmed when those who ask why their particular Church is being renovated, the answer is the same: “Because of things that happened in the 1960s.”

I was there for all of it. The reformers/dissidents wanted to remove things that elevated the church and created an appropriate sense of reverence. That was wrong. They wanted to turn the mass into something profane.

Ed

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

What does Vatican II have to do with this?

This is all due to pope Paul VI,s Novus Ordo Missae right?

 

[otjm]

I was there before and after Vatican II and certain misconceptions have appeared. As far as the Mass being rushed, that was never true.

Perhaps you were lucky enough to have a priest who didn’t rush. I am the oldest of 4 siblings and every one of us remember how fast our pastor could say a weekday Mass; it was not unusual to have it last about 17 minutes or less; as my youngest brother says, we thought he could say Latin breathing in as well as out.

“The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning towards the East was not a ‘celebration towards the wall’; it did not mean that the priest ‘had his back to the people’: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together ‘towards the Lord.’”

It is always bemusing to see Pope Benedict selectively quoted. He also approved of the Mass ad populum, and said it ad populum.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I grew up in an Australian Italian Catholic Enclave. Many older folks did not speak English. Your ultra traditional conservative Catholics.

I find myself doing traditions that , no doubt , were drummed into me as a small child, no one else seems to do, kneel and cross myself in the centre isle, entering the pew, on a section of the Angelus prayer. Covering my head during Exposition around the Tabernacle.

I do remember that Immigrant generation approving the changes the Mass was undergoing.
Our job always in Mass was eyes down, head bowed and pray through Mass. As I believe it should be regardless.

In my Parish, the rural Churches have not been renovated, and still have rails, Tabernacle behind the Alter.
The Cathedral seems to be the way it was built in the 1800s, according to old photos. There is a huge marble Alter in the Sanctury that Mass is held at. One can walk around it. It is a very beautiful Alter. There are 3 or 4 Alters in the Cathedral.

I believe Jesus would be facing us, His Creatures, in Mass.

How many here can honestly remember the way it was in a Traditional sense. Even from wearing head coverings to not having to wear them. Kneeling along a rail and waiting for the Priest to come to you. Long Masses in Latin, which for many mothers , required a crying room.

 

[OraLabora]

As FYI

1. the altars being tables is a more recent reintroduction. For a long time, the altars were against the back wall of the sanctuary or back wall for the altar was created.

No, this is false and ignores altars in cathedrals and monasteries, of which there are plenty. Many had a free-standing altar between the nave and the choir. Some did have it at the back wall of the choir. The three configurations given in my 1935 ceremonial are:

1. Altar against the back wall, with choir then nave;
2. Altar between the choir and the nave, with celebration oriented towards those in the choir;
3. Altar between the choir and the nave, with celebration oriented towards the people and back to the choir.

Instructions are given on how to celebrate in all 3.

Obviously in choice 3 the priest will be facing the people, but not the choir.

At our abbey, there is a small chapel built on a hill. It was built in 1947 with a free-standing altar.

 

[phil19034]

No, this is false and ignores altars in cathedrals and monasteries, of which there are plenty. Many had a free-standing altar between the nave and the choir. Some did have it at the back wall of the choir. The three configurations given in my 1935 ceremonial are:

1. Altar against the back wall, with choir then nave;
2. Altar between the choir and the nave, with celebration oriented towards those in the choir;
3. Altar between the choir and the nave, with celebration oriented towards the people and back to the choir.

Instructions are given on how to celebrate in all 3.

Obviously in choice 3 the priest will be facing the people, but not the choir.

At our abbey, there is a small chapel built on a hill. It was built in 1947 with a free-standing altar.

I said “reintroduction” meaning new parishes are built standard with them now. Of course there were exceptions, but free standing altars were not standard until after VII.

Maybe reintroduction was the wrong word, but my point is the freestanding altars went from exception to norm.

The installation of free standing altars in the 1970s and early 80s were invitation to rip out altar rails even when not necessary. I know of a rural parish that ripped out their altar, ripped out the altar rails and to this day still has a temporary, portable altar. There was zero reason to distory the sanctuary, but they did it anyway.

Question: did Cathedrals always (let’s stick with since the 1800s) have freestanding main altars?

 

[Solomonson]

What does Vatican II have to do with this?

This is all due to pope Paul -]VI,s/-] VI’s -]Novus Ordo Missae/-] Ordinary Form of the Mass right?

There you go. Now your rude statement is at least more accurate.

 

[Solomonson]

I wonder what the ad oritentum/altar against the wall folks think of ground zero of Christendom – Saint Peter’s Basilica and its versus populum orientation?

 

[Kielbasi]

I grew up in an Australian Italian Catholic Enclave. Many older folks did not speak English. Your ultra traditional conservative Catholics.

…

How many here can honestly remember the way it was in a Traditional sense. Even from wearing head coverings to not having to wear them. Kneeling along a rail and waiting for the Priest to come to you. Long Masses in Latin, which for many mothers , required a crying room.

Pittsburgh had a lot of immigrants of different ethnicities, back when I was a kid- we had Italian enclaves as well as Polish, Slovak, Lithuanian and other ethnic groups as well who came here in the early 20th C. and many were still alive when I was a kid in the 1960’s. But that’s the past. This kind of enclave just didn’t last, they all intermarried with each other, and as they got richer moved out of the old areas, integrating with the rest of the population.

I remember the Latin Mass and women covering their heads in church. Men dressed better, too, but that was a societal thing not isolated to the Catholic Church. Men wore suits or at least sports coats and ties to go to a baseball game in those days.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Melbourne experienced Immigration waves post WW2. The first was the Italian wave.

Melboune got Lygon st, great coffee, ethnic food, work force for the Snowy Mt Hydro Scheme, and the Mafia.
Pre this first wave we were very white Australia, so this first wave had a lot of obstacles.

Mass dress code was very formal, everyone had their Sunday best. Footy matches VFL were strictly Saturdays. With Sunday being local or kids games.
unfortunately, the first AFL Good Friday Game ever is meant to be on tomorrow.

There are still areas where different ethnic groups live in Melbourne, its very multicultural.
The latest is the Syro group Indian Catholics. A great new dimension.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

There you go. Now your rude statement is at least more accurate.

Is a question not a statement.

Plus it the Latin title for the ordinary form of mass after 1969, which is why i ASK what it has to do with the second ecumenical Vatican council. (1962/1965)

 

[pnewton]

Because no one has ever explained the Mass.

That is a little bit condescending. There is not reason to believe anyone is ignorant of the Mass based the direction Mass is being offered. Since it is the priests who offer Mass, I would be willing to bet that pretty much everyone of them understand what it is they do.

I do not see it as a big issue, but in response to the question in the first post, the two benefits are better visibility of what is happening on the altar and better hearing of the words of the Mass.

As to the priest being seen as something special, I want to roll my eyes because of all the time I have seen the exact opposite criticism by traditionalists, that there is a blurring of the lines between the laity and the clergy because of increased liturgical roles of the former. Okay, I will.

 

[Phemie]

There you go. Now your rude statement is at least more accurate.

Not everyone who uses the term Novus Ordo does it disparagingly. Even Pope Paul VI “Novus Ordo” in a speech back in 1976.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

 

[Phemie]

Because no one has ever explained the Mass.

I don’t think this is true. I grew up in the 50s and by the age of 6 I definitely knew what the Mass was, it had been explained and I could follow along in my kid Missal with pictures. I never felt disengaged from it in the least and, even though we didn’t have dialogue Mass in my neck of the woods, I could still follow along with an adult Missal.