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

[LVCIVS_DEI]

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

I did not even know it can be used disparagingly.

It is always better to ask rather than to blindly asume someone’s intention…

 

[Havard]

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?

Simple. In St. Peter’s, Mass was both ad orientem and versus populum (the two are not mutually exclusive.)

The versus populum aspect of orientation at St. Peter’s was never intentionally performed for its own sake, at all. It was a merely necessity in order for the priest to be facing ad orientem. This is because St. Peter’s has an unusual design. The structure was built facing west, but the current altar was positioned in relation to St. Peter’s tomb, freestanding, giving rise to the unusual combination of both ad orientem/versus populum. People turned toward the doors/away from the altar, so there still was the common direction of facing east.

Further, there are many side altars in St. Peter’s where Mass can only be celebrated* ad orientem*.

 

[pianistclare]

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.

 

[pnewton]

I did not even know it can be used disparagingly.

It is always better to ask rather than to blindly asume someone’s intention…

Let me take a stab and explaining this. Yes “novus ordo” made sense back when the ordo really was novus. It was an accurate description. Now that the Mass used is no longer new, calling it new carries a different connotation than when it was new, a more reactionary appeal as it were.

What if I referred to rights granted to blacks by the Civil rights Act of 1964 as all these* new rights for blacks.* In 1964, it would be an enlightened comment. Now, it is reactionary comment and my offend black people.

 

[edwest2]

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.

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

I went to Catholic school and it was mandatory for us to go to Church during school hours. I saw Mass schedules at other Churches. They were the same as ours. The Masses took the same time.

What is absolutely wrong is saying Pope Benedict approved anything. Vatican II introduced the Liturgical Reform. The New Form (Novus Ordo) and versus populum - the priest facing the people - began there. The 1962 missal, which I had, was still licit. And has since been recently reprinted. There was NO selective quoting.

“Pope Benedict XVI, a strong advocate of ad orientem liturgy, said Mass facing the sanctuary instead of the people on various occasions in the Vatican. Pope St. John Paul II is well known for his ad orientem Masses, which he offered regularly in his private chapel in the presence of many.”

Both the NO and EF are equally valid. Saying the Mass in 17 minutes? Very, very unusual.

Ed

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Let me take a stab and explaining this. Yes “novus ordo” made sense back when the ordo really was novus. It was an accurate description. Now that the Mass used is no longer new, calling it new carries a different connotation than when it was new, a more reactionary appeal as it were.

What if I referred to rights granted to blacks by the Civil rights Act of 1964 as all these* new rights for blacks.* In 1964, it would be an enlightened comment. Now, it is reactionary comment and my offend black people.

Well i did not know what else to call it.
Mass of Paul VI?, 1969 Mass?

I am just frustrated that he blindly asumed i was being reactionary.
I mean he could have asked if i meant it that way.

 

[otjm]

Well i did not know what else to call it.
Mass of Paul VI?, 1969 Mass?

I am just frustrated that he blindly asumed i was being reactionary.
I mean he could have asked if i meant it that way.

When Pope Benedict provided us with Summorum Pontificum (in July of 2007), which outlined some rules concerning the older form of the Mass, he used the term “Ordinary Form” for the Mass we have from Pope Paul VI, and the “Extraordinary Form” for the older form of the Mass.

As there have been people who have been on a spectrum from “not liking” the newer form of the Mass, to outright despising it, over time the term “Novus Ordo” has been used in a way that appears disparaging. And to avoid typing out the terms Benedict used, we see it now as “EF” and “OF”.

None of which has made those who didn’t like it grow in appreciation for it. Attitudes for the most part tend to be rather solidly entrenched.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

When Pope Benedict provided us with Summorum Pontificum (in July of 2007), which outlined some rules concerning the older form of the Mass, he used the term “Ordinary Form” for the Mass we have from Pope Paul VI, and the “Extraordinary Form” for the older form of the Mass.

As there have been people who have been on a spectrum from “not liking” the newer form of the Mass, to outright despising it, over time the term “Novus Ordo” has been used in a way that appears disparaging. And to avoid typing out the terms Benedict used, we see it now as “EF” and “OF”.

None of which has made those who didn’t like it grow in appreciation for it. Attitudes for the most part tend to be rather solidly entrenched.

Well ok.
Weird but ok…

But i think they could have said that in a more polite way…

But my question was: What does it have to do with Vatican II?

 

[pnewton]

Well ok.
Weird but ok…

But i think they could have said that in a more polite way…

Yes sir, (or ma’am). We can all benefit from courtesy and manners. That is why I jumped in with just a simple explanation, and I note someone followed up with some of the history of the terms here.

I know I have to strive to avoid letting past disagreements flow into future topics. This whole form of Mass, and what nomenclature should be used has been kicked around that some of us older people have to make a point of dropping our baggage and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt on every topic, every time.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Yes sir, (or ma’am). We can all benefit from courtesy and manners. That is why I jumped in with just a simple explanation, and I note someone followed up with some of the history of the terms here.

I know I have to strive to avoid letting past disagreements flow into future topics. This whole form of Mass, and what nomenclature should be used has been kicked around that some of us older people have to make a point of dropping our baggage and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt on every topic, every time.

We can all benefit from courtesy and manners. That is why I jumped in with just a simple explanation, and I note someone followed up with some of the history of the terms here.

I just hope i do not get blamed all the time…

 

[Paganus]

Vatican II never called for Mass to be said facing the people. As far as I understand, it was the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that called for it to be made possible. Even Eastern Rite churches who have traditionally celebrated their liturgies ad orientem have Mass facing the people now.

The chapel where we have our Traditional Latin Mass on Sunday has a beautiful high altar. However, after the Mass is finished, two people move the wooden table back in front of the high altar for the weekday Masses. I don’t know why the priest who says the daily Masses can’t do them at the high altar, ad orientem.

So why has Mass facing the people, which was never mandated by Vatican II, become almost universal now?

In our diocese, it’s mandated by the bishop (for the ordinary form).

 

[otjm]

Well ok.
Weird but ok…

But i think they could have said that in a more polite way…

But my question was: What does it have to do with Vatican II?

Vatican II in part stated that the rubrics ( the laws, or procedures, if you will) of the Mass were to be reviewed and modified.

Liturgical research and scholarship had been going on for a number of decades before Vatican Ii was called together, There were 2,000+ bishops gathered over several years in Rome, and part of what they wanted done was to make some changes as to how the Mass is celebrated based on that research.

And the discussion (some times a shouting match) has been continuing on to some extent ever since. One bishop recently referred to the EF as “baroque”. Baroque generally is taken to mean redundancy, and elaborate, and with an abundance of details, People who prefer the EF often take offense at such descriptions. While it is accurate, too much of the discussion wanders into emotional territory, a place where there are no winners.

The OF was introduced, often in dioceses without any real preparation for the amount of change or any description of why the changes were made, and in all too many circumstances was subject to abuse. Some of that is similar to a child who has been under strict parenting rules; turns 18 and goes off to college and goes hog wild. Most of the chaos was in the 1970s and the 1980s, and by the 1990s things started to settle down. In discussions (shouting matches) of it, it is often made to appear that abuse was everywhere. It wasn’t, which is not to excuse any of it, but hyperbole reigns supreme in too many of the recountings.

In any event, all 5 Popes have said the OF and continue to do so. The EF is said in very few parishes (for example, in the US, around 2% of parishes may celebrate the EF; some are EF parishes, and some celebrate the EF either at one Mass on Sunday, or infrequently.

Just curious: in what part of Holland are you? My family is from Reek primarily, southwest of Nijmegan. But that goes back to my great grandparents.

 

[Solomonson]

…Both the -]NO/-] OF and EF are equally valid. Saying the Mass in 17 minutes? Very, very unusual.

Ed

 

[Solomonson]

Let me take a stab and explaining this. Yes “novus ordo” made sense back when the ordo really was novus. It was an accurate description. Now that the Mass used is no longer new, calling it new carries a different connotation than when it was new, a more reactionary appeal as it were.

What if I referred to rights granted to blacks by the Civil rights Act of 1964 as all these* new rights for blacks.* In 1964, it would be an enlightened comment. Now, it is reactionary comment and my offend black people.

That’s right – just as the 1964 Fords were new for 1964, but not for 2017. I have never (and I mean never) heard anyone refer to the OF Mass as the “novus ordo” or “NO” who didn’t strongly prefer the EF Mass. Sorry, the “traditional latin mass.”

Like it or not, the Mass of Pope Paul VI has never officially been called the “novus ordo.”

I’ve probably excused myself a dozen times in real life from chatting with people who use either “novus ordo” or “NO” in conversation. It’s a dead giveaway to their bias/bigotry and I’m just not interested.

I suspect most know they’re being offensive too which makes their behavior all the worse. As long as it makes them feel good personally (they seem to derive pleasure from that cute little gig) seems to be all they care about.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Vatican II in part stated that the rubrics ( the laws, or procedures, if you will) of the Mass were to be reviewed and modified.

Liturgical research and scholarship had been going on for a number of decades before Vatican Ii was called together, There were 2,000+ bishops gathered over several years in Rome, and part of what they wanted done was to make some changes as to how the Mass is celebrated based on that research.

And the discussion (some times a shouting match) has been continuing on to some extent ever since. One bishop recently referred to the EF as “baroque”. Baroque generally is taken to mean redundancy, and elaborate, and with an abundance of details, People who prefer the EF often take offense at such descriptions. While it is accurate, too much of the discussion wanders into emotional territory, a place where there are no winners.

The OF was introduced, often in dioceses without any real preparation for the amount of change or any description of why the changes were made, and in all too many circumstances was subject to abuse. Some of that is similar to a child who has been under strict parenting rules; turns 18 and goes off to college and goes hog wild. Most of the chaos was in the 1970s and the 1980s, and by the 1990s things started to settle down. In discussions (shouting matches) of it, it is often made to appear that abuse was everywhere. It wasn’t, which is not to excuse any of it, but hyperbole reigns supreme in too many of the recountings.

In any event, all 5 Popes have said the OF and continue to do so. The EF is said in very few parishes (for example, in the US, around 2% of parishes may celebrate the EF; some are EF parishes, and some celebrate the EF either at one Mass on Sunday, or infrequently.

Just curious: in what part of Holland are you? My family is from Reek primarily, southwest of Nijmegan. But that goes back to my great grandparents.

As far as i know the OF was not introduced until 1969/1970 by pope Paul VI, and not St. John XXIII.
In the Netherlands people think it was St. John XXIII who changed the liturgy during the 2nd Vatican council.

And my missal from 1962 still has the old rites.
I live in Rosmalen near the city of S, Hertogenbosch.

Now everyone here can easily figure out who i am.

And it is the Netherlands not Holland.

 

[otjm]

As far as i know the OF was not introduced until 1969/1970 by pope Paul VI, and not St. John XXIII.
In the Netherlands people think it was St. John XXIII who changed the liturgy during the 2nd Vatican council.

And my missal from 1962 still has the old rites.
I live in Rosmalen near the city of S, Hertogenbosch.

Now everyone here can easily figure out who i am.

And it is the Netherlands not Holland.

5 Popes: Paul 6th; John Paul 1; John Paul 2; Benedict 16 and Francis.

With no disrespect to the Netherlands, out here we all have referred to it as “Holland”. No clue as to where that came from, but it is all I ever heard - and I am 71.d

And I promise I am not a stalker.

 

[Phemie]

As far as i know the OF was not introduced until 1969/1970 by pope Paul VI, and not St. John XXIII.
In the Netherlands people think it was St. John XXIII who changed the liturgy during the 2nd Vatican council.

And my missal from 1962 still has the old rites.

Mass had been changing for a while before 1969. Even the 1962 Missal was a change from prior editions.

I was in grade 6 when we switched to the vernacular so that was in 1965. I remember that first Mass where not only was it in our language but we were expected to respond! That was very difficult for many of the adults since we had never experienced a dialog Mass and they were used to being silent in church. After that it seemed that there were various changes every couple of months until the official Missal was promulgated. The total abandonment of the Latin and Greek responses were certainly not what was envisaged by Vatican II, yet despite Pope Paul VI’s Jubilate Deo, that’s exactly what happened in most places.

But for all their difficulty with that, nothing compared to their horror at the destruction of the sanctuary. When I think that they could have simply brought in another altar and placed it in the center of the sanctuary without the destruction of the high altar, I could cry.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

5 Popes: Paul 6th; John Paul 1; John Paul 2; Benedict 16 and Francis.

With no disrespect to the Netherlands, out here we all have referred to it as “Holland”. No clue as to where that came from, but it is all I ever heard - and I am 71.d

And I promise I am not a stalker.

Ah right, forgot about ohn Paul I.

youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

And I promise I am not a stalker.:thumbsup

Good to know.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Mass had been changing for a while before 1969. Even the 1962 Missal was a change from prior editions.

I was in grade 6 when we switched to the vernacular so that was in 1965. I remember that first Mass where not only was it in our language but we were expected to respond! That was very difficult for many of the adults since we had never experienced a dialog Mass and they were used to being silent in church. After that it seemed that there were various changes every couple of months until the official Missal was promulgated. The total abandonment of the Latin and Greek responses were certainly not what was envisaged by Vatican II, yet despite Pope Paul VI’s Jubilate Deo, that’s exactly what happened in most places.

But for all their difficulty with that, nothing compared to their horror at the destruction of the sanctuary. When I think that they could have simply brought in another altar and placed it in the center of the sanctuary without the destruction of the high altar, I could cry.

Thanks and agreed.

John XXIII even wrote about keeping Latin as a in his piece Veterum Sapientia.

 

[patrick457]

Simple. In St. Peter’s, Mass was both ad orientem and versus populum (the two are not mutually exclusive.)

The versus populum aspect of orientation at St. Peter’s was never intentionally performed for its own sake, at all. It was a merely necessity in order for the priest to be facing ad orientem. This is because St. Peter’s has an unusual design. The structure was built facing west, but the current altar was positioned in relation to St. Peter’s tomb, freestanding, giving rise to the unusual combination of both ad orientem/versus populum. People turned toward the doors/away from the altar, so there still was the common direction of facing east.

Further, there are many side altars in St. Peter’s where Mass can only be celebrated* ad orientem*.

Exactly. Speaking of which, technically the priest (or bishop) did not even literally face the people anyway in those days, because the congregation stood (no pews back then) in the side aisles of the church; the main nave was left open. (In fact, there were churches where the pulpit - which could be connected to the sanctuary by a kind of walkway - was literally running down the middle of the nave.) If anything, the celebrant was actually facing the doors.