Novus Ordo mass still require priests to celebrate mass ad orientem?

[Francoist]

This has been one of the reasons that tabernacles were moved to side altars or chapels.

Someone called that the “Jesus Jail”. I do not think the practice is reverent or mindful of Our Lord.

 

[OraLabora]

Someone called that the “Jesus Jail”. I do not think the practice is reverent or mindful of Our Lord.

Well actually tabernacles in side chapels is a long standing (i.e. pre-Vatican II) tradition in monasteries. And the monks of just about every monastery I’ve ever been to are extremely reverent.

 

[Francoist]

Well actually tabernacles in side chapels is a long standing (i.e. pre-Vatican II) tradition in monasteries. And the monks of just about every monastery I’ve ever been to are extremely reverent.

I suppose the question depends upon context. But a parish church or a cathedral is not the same as a monastery.

 

[Sirach2]

I suppose the question depends upon context. But a parish church or a cathedral is not the same as a monastery.

I don’t understand the disagreement over the tabernacle in connection with ad orientem posture of the priest. The tabernacle has nothing to do with the altar of sacrifice. It is a “holy of holies” in which the Blessed Sacrament is reserved.

In the Temple of Israel, the sacrificial altar was where the priest offered the animal sacrifice to take away sins. The Holies was where the Ark was kept behind the veil and was unconnected with the offering made upon the altar. Why then would anyone think the priest must face the tabernacle? I believe the theology is flawed and greatly misunderstood by those who look for any loophole to advocate their preference of this older tradition.

Since the discipline was lawfully changed by the Church, these folks have no argument, even if it happens to be Pope Benedict’s personal preference.

Truthfully, although the discipline permits versus populum, and most OF liturgies are celebrated in this manner, a priest may offer mass in the OF using ad orientem. Both are permitted, but I’m not certain the priest can adopt this on his own initiative, or whether he needs permission of the Bishop.

But to base the theology solely on facing east or BXVI’s opinion is to miss the mark and spread a theology of one’s own understanding, putting the Church in a negative light.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

the early Christians received in the hand… Why so much legalism?

It may be legalism for some, but it may also be love, to want to increase protection of the Eucharist from falling to the ground or being stolen.

 

[vames]

Does it really matter whether the altar faces east, west, north or south?

Are more souls saved as a result of altars facing east?

Right.
“For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”. Not “there am I, but only if they are facing east”.

 

[Megan7]

It may be legalism for some, but it may also be love, to want to increase protection of the Eucharist from falling to the ground or being stolen.

 

[godisgood77]

It may be legalism for some, but it may also be love, to want to increase protection of the Eucharist from falling to the ground or being stolen.

That’s fair. You would admit then, that it is a stylistic preference?

 

[floresco]

From Inter oecumenci, which is the instruction document given to the Consilium formed by Paul VI for the reform of the liturgy. A very good read!!

Here is an explanation that shows how this ought to be understood:

In short, what the Latin says is that a free-standing altar is preferable where possible, NOT that Mass versus populum is preferable where possible.

Fortunately the dicasterty in whose purview the interpretation lies, has answered the question. On 25 September 2000 the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments issued a clarification (Prot. No. 2036/00/L) regarding #299 in the new Latin GIRM. That clarification says:

“The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

“Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.

“The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.”

 

[godisgood77]

Here is an informative article/Q&A written by Father John Dietzen in IL that sheds some light on this subject.

Seems like BXVI was concerned specifically about the mass events at St. Peter’s because of the immense amount of tourism and compounded chance of Eucharistic abuse, not really with the Church as a whole.

Q* I am still confused about the new practice of receiving Communion in our hands. According to newspaper stories, Pope Benedict XVI always requires that people receive from him on the tongue. Then shouldn’t we all do that?

We know that Mother Teresa said that receiving Communion in our hand is the most evil and disrespectful thing in the world today. Why do we continue to do it? (Michigan)*

**A ***First, it’s worth recalling again that Communion on the tongue was practically nonexistent in the church for nearly a thousand years. It became common only about 900 years ago, along with other new liturgical practices (such as the two elevations after the consecration at Mass, which began about the year 1200) in response to some who rejected the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Pope Paul VI revived our present ritual for receiving in the hand, patterned after that prescribed in the Jerusalem Catechesis about the year 400.

Pope Benedict XVI has, as you say, indicated his preference to give only on the tongue at Masses when he presides. However, that does not change the rule, nor does it indicate the rule should change.

There is no irreverence in pointing out that, practically and theologically, not every personal preference or choice of the pope becomes law for the universal church. Certainly, Pope Benedict, as with Pope John Paul II and other popes before him, is quite capable of legislating for the whole church when he wishes to do so.

Pope Benedict himself clarified his views on the subject in his newly published book-length interview, entitled Light of the World:

"I am not opposed in principle to Communion in the hand; I have both administered and received Communion this way myself. The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel and receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the real presence with an exclamation point.

“One very important reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of Mass events we hold in St. Peter’s.”

Another reason, he added, is to “send a clear signal” to people at those Masses who think that everyone present should automatically receive Communion.

The pope told of hearing about people who received Communion and stuck the host in their wallet to take home as a souvenir. Anyone who has witnessed the near delirium of some participants at papal Masses will easily believe that could happen. Obviously, this is what the pope is concerned about.

The rumor you mention about Mother Teresa condemning Communion in the hand surfaces every few years, but it is false. Can anyone really believe that she, who had seen the worst this earth can offer, would claim that Communion in the hand was the greatest evil in the world? I’m amazed at people’s gullibility.

Nevertheless, several years ago, after receiving letters about it from disturbed readers, I consulted one of her community at their headquarters in India.

Her reply: The Missionaries of Charity respect the freedom given by the church to receive Communion either on the tongue or in the hand. The usual practice of the Missionaries’ community is to receive on the tongue, but their sisters are free to receive in the hand if they wish.*

 

[Ad_Orientem]

You would admit then, that it is a stylistic preference?

For some people it may be. For me it isn’t as much a matter of taste as one of devotion. I do not say that others sin by receiving in the hand, if that’s what you mean.

 

[godisgood77]

For some people it may be. For me it isn’t as much a matter of taste as one of devotion. I do not say that others sin by receiving in the hand, if that’s what you mean.

Again, that’s very fair. However, I think you are trying to make a distinction where one does not exist. A devotion is, by nature, a personal choice. You can argue the semantics of the words or your preference for one word over the other, but we are saying the same thing… calling your preferred method a devotion is fine. One who has a different preference can have as deep of a devotion… the external signs and gestures mean little to me. God knows our hearts. I’m happy that you are faithful, am accepting of your differing preferences and hold no disdain toward those differences.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Here is an explanation that shows how this ought to be understood:

In short, what the Latin says is that a free-standing altar is preferable where possible, NOT that Mass versus populum is preferable where possible.

I am not quite sure where you are going with this.
The OP asked if this was realted to VII, and I linked a document that talks about what the reform of the litugy should be*** at that time***.
I am not exactly sure what this has to do with what was asked in the OP.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . you are trying to make a distinction where one does not exist . . . the external signs and gestures mean little to me . . .

That’s where we differ. To me the external gestures and signs mean a great deal, because they put me in different states of mind. For me they are not just matters of taste but affect my devotion.

 

[godisgood77]

That’s where we differ. To me the external gestures and signs mean a great deal, because they put me in different states of mind. For me they are not just matters of taste but affect my devotion.

Agreed…that’s we differ. That’s why I said they “mean little to me”. They clearly mean more to you. There is no accounting for taste…we are still saying the same thing my brother…

Pax

 

[MarkThompson]

I suppose the question depends upon context. But a parish church or a cathedral is not the same as a monastery.

Actually, before Vatican II it was strongly recommended (valde opportunum est, “it is very appropriate”) to have the tabernacle in a side chapel in cathedrals and large parishes. You may be interested in this post of mine on the topic from September 2011.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . The tabernacle has nothing to do with the altar of sacrifice. . . I believe the theology is flawed and greatly misunderstood . . . putting the Church in a negative light.

Sirach2, it seems you allow yourself the freedom to advance your own theology of liturgy, but will not allow the same freedom to others. It may be true that we shouldn’t question the Church’s disciplines, but if so, that applies to traditional ones no less than recent ones, especially when the traditional ones are still in use.

 

[Cat]

That’s where we differ. To me the external gestures and signs mean a great deal, because they put me in different states of mind. For me they are not just matters of taste but affect my devotion.

I can’t help but worry about people who have this approach to their faith.

What happens when these externals are stripped away?

You know all about Auschwitz and St. Maximillian Kolbe. When I went to see the “Treasures of the Vatican” exhibit at the Milwaukee museum a few years ago, there were many many beautiful treasures, some of them priceless because of the gold and jewels. But to me, the most stirring treasure was a simple can lid and a little shot glass. These were what Father Kolbe used to celebrate Mass at Auschwitz. He didn’t have any of the externals, and considering the conditions of the concentration camp and the horrible treatment of the prisoners, it’s doubtful that the Mass looked or sounded anything at all like it did in the Catholic churches of that time.

How would a Catholic who needs externals fare under such conditions?

What happens if you are sick or hurt, and have to spend extended time in a hospital or extended care facility, or become invalid and shut-in in your home? You realize that the Mass will be much simpler than what you are used to, and there may not even be a Mass. You may receive Holy Communion from a visiting priest or from an EMHC.

Or what happens if, God forbid, evil comes to power as it did in Germany, and glorious Masses go underground to makeshift basement chapels (as is the case in China, from what I understand), or again, God forbid, to prisoner camps?

Will this affect your faith negatively? How will you handle the lack of beauty?

I think we should be very grateful for the privilege of serving at a Mass, and if you love the externals and symbolism, you need to be especially grateful if you have access to a Mass that offers all these. We are so blessed in the U.S.!

But I also think that we need to hold onto these things loosely, because our faith should not depend on external circumstances. We need to stay close to Jesus and revel in His Beauty and Reality.

My dad was diagnosed with cancer in October 2012, and he died Feb. 15, 2013. The cancer did not respond to chemo, and it grew very fast, and he spent his last month in a hospice.

My brother and I spent a lot of time with Dad, and once when we were sitting at his bedside and he was sleeping, my brother (who is a rough, tough welder with little background in philosophy!), said, “Isn’t it strange how when you get sick like this, nothing material matters anymore. Even a fork doesn’t mean anything, because you’re too weak to hold it. All the stuff that meant something to you in your life is gone, and you have nothing but what’s in your mind and soul.”

This comment really impacted me and my faith. I realized that I can’t base my faith on external circumstances, because it’s entirely possible that they will be taken from me at some point in my life. It’s what–or WHO, is in my soul that will help me then.

I hope all this makes sense and is helpful to you and others.

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach2, it seems you allow yourself the freedom to advance your own theology of liturgy, but will not allow the same freedom to others. It may be true that we shouldn’t question the Church’s disciplines, but if so, that applies to traditional ones no less than recent ones,** especially when the traditional ones are still in use**.

Have you noticed that I was not responding with regard to the* traditional ones?* The topic and the OP is asking whether *ad orientem *should be celebrated in the OF liturgy, and that is what I responded to. Nor is it my theology of liturgy, but the Church’s, and can be found in scripture in the Old Testament with regard to the positioning of the “holies” and “altar.” Let me know if you need the reference.

Versus populum is stilll the discipline used in almost every OF liturgy. Do you agree?

 

[Sirach2]

I can’t help but worry about people who have this approach to their faith.

What happens when these externals are stripped away?

You know all about Auschwitz and St. Maximillian Kolbe. When I went to see the “Treasures of the Vatican” exhibit at the Milwaukee museum a few years ago, there were many many beautiful treasures, some of them priceless because of the gold and jewels. But to me, the most stirring treasure was a simple can lid and a little shot glass. These were what Father Kolbe used to celebrate Mass at Auschwitz. He didn’t have any of the externals, and considering the conditions of the concentration camp and the horrible treatment of the prisoners, it’s doubtful that the Mass looked or sounded anything at all like it did in the Catholic churches of that time.

How would a Catholic who needs externals fare under such conditions?

I realized that I can’t base my faith on external circumstances, because it’s entirely possible that they will be taken from me at some point in my life. It’s what–or WHO, is in my soul that will help me then.

I hope all this makes sense and is helpful to you and others.

Very nice to reflect on this. Thank you.