OF and V II

[amlcssr]

I have a problem believing that Our Church is so misled as to implement worldwide in every country an error such as being alleged here. I provided the wording (I think) in Spanish. If it was a mistranslation in the Latin, then why is the Spanish translation coinciding with the alleged version in English? There are other translations also, all over the world in other countries. Truly, they cannot all be misinterpretations!

Surely, somebody over these forty years would have corroborated and straighted it out if in fact it was an error. Since there has been no change, I can only conclude that propaganda is at work. I’m not a bit concerned, but I do believe a traditionalist who loves ad orientum would be only too happy to believe it.

GIRM 299 Latin for reference: Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.

What is being alleged is not that people erroneously think that Mass may be celebrated facing the people, but rather that people erroneously think that Mass must be celebrated facing the people “whenever possible”.

I copied the Q-and-A part specifically because Fr. Z is saying that celebratio is feminine and therefore, cannot possibly be referent of quod, which is neuter. Which, in turn, means that the GIRM translation that says:

In every church there should ordinarily be a fixed, dedicated altar, which should be freestanding to allow the ministers to walk around it easily and Mass to be celebrated facing the people, which is desirable whenever possible….

cannot possibly be correct, because the quod clause “which is desirable whenever possible” cannot be referring to “celebrated facing the people”, because quod is neuter and celebratio is feminine, but must instead be referring to “should be freestanding”.

This is also the argument of Fr. Uwe Michael Lang in his book “Turning Towards the Lord”, in which he states:

The subtle wording of this paragraph (possit - possibile) clearly indicates that the position of the celebrant priest facing the people is not made compulsory. The instruction merely allows for both forms of celebration. At any rate, the added phrase “which is desirable wherever (or whenever) possible (quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit)” refers to the provision for a freestanding altar and not to the desirability of celebration towards the people.

with an attached footnote: The text is carefully scrutinized by C.M. Cullen and J.W. Koterski, “The New IGMR and Mass versus Populum”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, June 2001, 51-54.

It is not a question of whether celebration versus populum is permitted, but rather whether it is required or preferred; and the answer to that is: no.

 

[archangel04]

Thank you for correcting my misprint in using the word “again.” My apologies, Archangel. I sometimes use that as a figure of speech, and in your case, it was taken literally.

It’s ok, I actually looked back to see if I had posted something incorrect lol

The link is just to show where I had heard about the mistranslation.

 

[archangel04]

I find it credible that the Latin intends to say that the mass can be celebrated facing the people for one simple reason. Many of the elements of the Ordinary Form are borrowed from conventual forms of celebrating mass. Contrary to what many people believe that much was borrowed from Protestant liturgies, the truth is that the Protestants received much of what Luther took with him from his Augustinian background.

Augustinians, Franciscans, Cistercians and Trappists have an old tradition of celebrating the conventual mass ad populum, because it met the liturgical needs of the religious community. In those days they were called “customs”. Today, we call them “forms”. Customs or forms, the fact remains that this was not new to Roman Catholicism.

Most conventual altars were built so that you could walk around them. There would be a solid pedestal type altar for the tabernacle. The Franciscans had it behind the main altar. Other convents had it in a side chapel adjacent to the sanctuary. This arrangement made it easier to bring the fraternity together.

If you read the Cistercian, Franciscan and Augustinian rules and history, the priests are rarely mentioned, because the focus of their life and liturgy was always around the cross and the entire brotherhood. The monks and friars who were priests had a sacred duty, to lead their brothers in the sacrifice. The word that influenced how they built their chapels was “brothers”. These were chapels that were deliberately built with a brotherhood in mind. We must remember, that the number of priests in these communities was usually small. Most monks and friars were not priests.

Before the age of concelebration, if you had more than one priest in the house, only one could celebrate mass. Today, with concelebration, every community decides whether to use that option or have only one priest celebrate the conventual mass and everyone else, ordained or not, is part of congregation.

Among secular clergy and many religious orders, the priest was set apart and there was a definite line between the priest and the congregation, which was usually lay. They did not have the need for a sanctuary that accommodated the community around the altar.

This floor plan, if you will and the celebration facing the congregation seems to be borrowed from conventual liturgical practices. People can argue whether or not it should have been carried outside of the convents, monasteries and friaries. That’s a whole other subject.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This makes a lot of sense. But I still don’t see why the altar hat to become a “table” for your typical diocesan Church? I can see this being part of monasteries, chapels and so on, but why Churches where the majority are lay folks? Ad-orientem is very beautiful and mysterious at the same time, we lay folks need that awe in our normal lives.

Thanks again Br for the history lesson, it’s always good to learn something new.

 

[archangel04]

It’s really a very beautiful and ancient concept that was lost in the secular world and preserved only in monasteries and friaries. I sometimes wonder if it should be left only for monasteries and friaries.

Br. JR, OSF

I would say yes! I see it as a special gift to those who have given their entire lives for the sake of the kingdom by living the consecrated life. Us lay folks don’t give up our entire lives like that.

 

[JReducation]

This makes a lot of sense. But I still don’t see why the altar hat to become a “table” for your typical diocesan Church? I can see this being part of monasteries, chapels and so on, but why Churches where the majority are lay folks? Ad-orientem is very beautiful and mysterious at the same time, we lay folks need that awe in our normal lives.

Thanks again Br for the history lesson, it’s always good to learn something new.

I would say yes! I see it as a special gift to those who have given their entire lives for the sake of the kingdom by living the consecrated life. Us lay folks don’t give up our entire lives like that.

I would have approached this from a different perspective. To me, it’s not a matter of who gives up more or less. Having been married once (I’m a widower) and being a religious now, I know that the sacrifices are different, but neither way of life is without them.

I first look at why the average layman does not appreciate this simple floor plan. The answer becomes very obvious.

First: Look at the religious communities involved: Cistercians, Trappists, Augustinians, and Franciscans. What do they have in common? For starters, the priesthood is not essential to their way of life. These are not communities like the Dominicans, Jesuits, Salesians and others that were founded as communities of priests and for the purpose of priestly ministry. These communities were founded a fraternities where men joined together to praise God, do penance and lead the world back to God by being examples of detachment and service. Many of these friars and monks were ALSO priests. But as the Cistercian told Tim, we don’t enter this way of life to be priests. We enter this way of life to be monks or to be friars, depending on the order. You can be a priest in a diocese or in any secular society such as the SSPX without having to take on the obligations of the consecrated life. For the average Catholic, the priest is the most important figure in the community. Not so for the monk or the friar. The founder is the most important figure. The laity does not have this experience.

Second: These communities do very little parish work. The Cistercians and Trappists do none at all. The Augustinians do some and the Franciscans are gradually pulling out as parishes become middle class and we do not minister to middle class or higher, except retreat work, colleges or hospital work, where people really need us. The laity has very little contact with this spirituality. Lay people who grow up in Franciscan and Augustinian parishes grow up with this austerity in the liturgy. But they do not pay much attention to it, because the friars pull the people into the spirituality of the order. The people feel very much a part of the Augustinian or Franciscan family. They follow the liturgical calendar of the order, not the Roman Calendar. They see the rituals and practices of the order daily. They are charmed by the informality of the religious. This is not what most people experience.

Third: The average Catholic, even priests, do not know much about the history of the mendicants and the monastic orders. They know our names and a little bit about the differences between a monk and a mendicant. But the truth is how much does the average Catholic know about Cistercians, Augustinians, Trappists, or Franciscans? Even the stories of the saints don’t tell you much about their orders. The focus is on the saint, not his community. If you don’t have the background, you’re not going to appreciate the beauty of it all. Just look at how many people think that it’s a Protestant thing, forgetting that Luther was an Augustinian monk. He actually kept many Augustinian practices in Lutheran worship. They were gradually stripped away by successive reforms of Lutheranism.

I would say that for this to make sense to people and for this to have the impact that it should, there has to be this knowledge and this experience that is not there yet. Human beings are sensual beings. We worship with soul, mind and body, not just the soul. What we see and hear are an important part of our worship. For a Franciscan, the simple altar draws him back to St. Francis, the early friars, the first chapels of the order, his vocation to poverty, penance and austerity, to the mystery of the cross and the destitute Christ at Calvary. There is a lot of powerful imagery in this simplicity. Imagery is not bad if it draws you into the mystery of God and his relationship with man. This is not going to be easy for those who have never been exposed to Franciscan theology or Cistercian, Trappist or Augustinian.

As to the other question, why a table? These are movements in art and architecture. Not all of them are appealing. They come and go. There were altars built during the Baroque period that I think are monstrosities. They are not simple table. They are very elaborate constructions. That was a movement of an era. The movement today is to mimic the medieval conventual designs. These were simple, austere and heavy. The altars were usually built of stone, not wood as we build them today. They were very solid. They were built this way to convey a message of strength and permanence. Many were very simple, with few details, but they delivered the message. Depending on the region of Europe, some were more detailed with reliefs or murals on them. The friars, monks and the laity who worshipped at those altars encountered a God who is strong and as permanent as stone, a God who saves and never leaves our side.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

amicssr:

It is not a question of whether celebration versus populum is permitted, but rather whether it is required or preferred; and the answer to that is: no.

We can discuss this without end, but the reality is that most OF liturgies are celebrated V.P., whether or not the language was clearly understood as being mandated. The Catholics who attend this mass are not up in arms over it.
OTOH, there are some priests who celebrate the OF using ad orientum, and they are not wrong in doing so.

Where I see strong opposition is from a few traditionalists who ARE up in arms and want the liturgy to always be celebrated A.O.
Fr. Z explained, “The Latin doesn’t even hint that Mass must be said versus populum. It only provides that it can be. And that is not an absolute, either.” Why do we see this opposition from the few?

Common sense tells me that if a bishop who received this document was in any doubt whatsoever about the intent behind the language, this would have been clarified by the Holy See in the bishops’ conferences. The instructions and directives discussed therein will never be made known to the laity who have only “sola documenta” to trump up their disagreement.

As I mentioned earlier, the fact that the OF is celebrated by the universal Church facing the people is enough for me not to doubt its lawfulness. If the direction V.P. was truly is error, it would have also been corrected long before now, just as the Church has issued a change beginning this advent in some of the wording in OF mass. Truthfully, I really love the present orientation and would be sad to see it changed. (As you also love the A.O.)

Religious submission is most restful and necessary to the spirit, and one is never wrong in obedience.

 

[Sirach2]

Another important instruction *affirming *I.O.'s directive is found in the G.I.R.M.
299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.116 The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.

Wouldn’t we expect that in the GIRM all instructions regarding the Roman Missal would have their facts straight?

If this was not the intent of the Commission in I.O., why then would they have instructed that the altar be free standing, if the celebrant was to continue to with ad orientum? There would be no need to make this statement or direct the changing of our altars.

 

[TimothyH]

I would say that for this to make sense to people and for this to have the impact that it should, there has to be this knowledge and this experience that is not there yet. Human beings are sensual beings. We worship with soul, mind and body, not just the soul. What we see and hear are an important part of our worship. For a Franciscan, the simple altar draws him back to St. Francis, the early friars, the first chapels of the order, his vocation to poverty, penance and austerity, to the mystery of the cross and the destitute Christ at Calvary. There is a lot of powerful imagery in this simplicity. Imagery is not bad if it draws you into the mystery of God and his relationship with man. This is not going to be easy for those who have never been exposed to Franciscan theology or Cistercian, Trappist or Augustinian.

I would echo that I found it very simple. No statues in the Church. Just a gold tabernacle gleaming in even the faintest candlelight, a small stained glass window with a picture of Our Lady near the peak of the sanctuary, a simple cross sans corpus hanging from a metal chain, and a clay pot with a hand written sign reading “Alms for the food pantry.” No profound bows. No bells. The Mass was said sloooooooowly, almost slow enough where one can form a thought about each individual word before the next one is spoken.

The… Lord… be… with… you… And… also… with… you… Thanks… be… to… God…

Much to your point about scandal Brother, a few things I noticed (like the laity who were on vocations retreat allowed in the sanctuary during consecration) would shock many here on CAF. My initial impression was that I was dealing with a bunch of hokey mystics who didn’t really care for rules, or a bunch of simple country boys who had lived in the cave so long that they had lost their way liturgically. I have carried those concerns with me in silence for one and a half years, and many have been calmed by Brother JR’s explanations.

I would encourage anyone reading this to experience this part of our faith, to the extent that they are able, to go on retreat for a weekend or a week with a truly cloistered, monastic community of Brothers or Sisters. As one who loves the smells and bells, dogma and doctrine, systematic theology, and such things, I can tell you that for me, it was truly life changing experience.

-Tim-

 

[Warrenton]

where the heart spontaneously

converges the attention of the whole assembly of the faithful.

This is most interesting.

How did the writer know what hearts do sponteneously? How does facing the people converge attention any more than facing away from them? When I am driving my car, I think I pay more attention to the cars that are facing my same direction than the ones going toward me.

One could say, if the priest stood on top of the altar people would be focused even more.

Then again, one could say the attention is reduced, on the ground that one sees 50% less of the priest when his lower half is hidden by the table.

It seems so strange.

The next question is, where did this idea come from? Did someone just make this up?

 

[Warrenton]

If the direction V.P. was truly is error, it would have also been corrected long before now, just as the Church has issued a change beginning this advent in some of the wording in OF mass.

This does not follow - because the Church could rectify the practice tommorow.

That is the problem with trying to define what is a mistake by the fact that it was fixed. It deprives one of the ability to identify a mistake prospectively.

 

[TimothyH]

The next question is, where did this idea come from? Did someone just make this up?

Read post number 18 of this thread where Brother explains it.

*** It’s very Catholic and very ancient. It started with the Cistercians, handed down to the Trappists, then to the Camaldolese and eventually to the Franciscans.***

All of the posts by Brother JR in this thread explain how it is organically and authentically Catholic.

-Tim-

 

[Warrenton]

That was a movement of an era. The movement today is to mimic the medieval conventual designs. These were simple, austere and heavy.

The strange thing is that there are actually published guidelines about what churches should look like, and they purport to favor one kind of design over another.

This is problematic, because that invariably carries the idea that the favored design is better than another.

That implication is false. Who can say that the Hagia Sophia was wrong? Who can say that Notre Dame or Rheims is wrong? Who can say that cathedral in Mexico City is wrong?

Against this, it may be advanced that the guidelines do not actually say these things are wrong. That is correct, but it raises the question if the writers do not say the old churches were built and adorned incorrectly, what possible point could there be in speaking to the issue at all?

Perhaps it is to justify the erection of such blasphemous monstrosities as the L.A. cathedral.

If so, that’s a problem.

 

[Sirach2]

Hello, Warrenton,

It will accomplish little toward unity to pit AO against VP, and I have no desire to argue the worthiness of either orientation. You are completely free to believe AO is better, whereas I may honestly disagree. In the long run, it is merely personal preference, yes? However, for the EF your preference is correct and proper, and for the OF, facing the people is proper - both in accord with the rubrics for each celebration.

Did you catch my point about obedience and submission?

The next question is, where did this idea come from? Did someone just make this up?

No - it came from the Commission established and directed by V-II to implement liturgical changes.

 

[stephraim]

Another important instruction *affirming *I.O.'s directive is found in the G.I.R.M.
299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.116 The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.

Wouldn’t we expect that in the GIRM all instructions regarding the Roman Missal would have their facts straight?

If this was not the intent of the Commission in I.O., why then would they have instructed that the altar be free standing, if the celebrant was to continue to with ad orientum? There would be no need to make this statement or direct the changing of our altars.

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.”

In other words, the “which is desirable wherever possible” clause refers to the “altar should be built apart from the wall” clause, and not the “Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people” clause.

 

[Sirach2]

Hello Stephraim,

It is always good to complete the reference in cases like this where context can be misleading if parts of the whole are missing.

After your “etc.,” comes a rather important sentence in that same paragraph:

It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in *Notitiae *29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.

However, whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as His instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the Eucharistic Synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all.

It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community. If the priest celebrates *versus populum, *which is legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesus Christum [toward God through Jesus Christ], as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned *versus Deum *[towards God] as its first spiritual movement.

 

[JReducation]

Read post number 18 of this thread where Brother explains it.

*** It’s very Catholic and very ancient. It started with the Cistercians, handed down to the Trappists, then to the Camaldolese and eventually to the Franciscans.***

All of the posts by Brother JR in this thread explain how it is organically and authentically Catholic.

-Tim-

For you, attending liturgy at a Cistercians monastery was a life altering experience, because you got to see, in its context, what to so many people is new. As you said, the Cistercians make up for the missing colors, statues, candles and other externals in their movements, the use of their voice, the pace at which they pray through the mass and the bonds of the fraternity itself. Remember what the monk told you. You enter a monastery to be a Cistercian, not to be a priest. Priesthood is second to them as it to Trappists, Augustinians and Franciscans.

For monks and friars the focus is to conform their lives to the naked and crucified Christ. The liturgy represents this very powerfully. It can be a very powerful experience. If you’re ever in Assisi, you can visit the old Franciscan chapels and you’ll find that many look like caves. They’re dark, very barren inside. They rarely have a crucifix, colors or statues, because they were never updated. Many don’t have what we we think of as a sanctuary. It’s just a small space up front with a rough table and a smaller table in the background with a tabernacle. Often there is no crucifix, but a simple cross. Francis did not use crucifixes. You rarely see Franciscans wearing a crucifix. It’s not part of that school of spirituality. The focus is on the poverty of the cross. The individual is to place his life on the cross.

People who worship there find it to be an inspiring experience. They feel that they have been raise up to the level of Francis and can almost touch the crucified Christ in the midst of this austerity. Why so? Because they understand the history and the spirituality of that school.

I believe this may be what is missing in our 20th century parishes. When these physical arrangements were carried over, the only explanation that was given was that we were going back to the early days of the Church. That explanation did not really work, because it did not give people the information that they needed, the time that they needed to process it, nor did it expose them to a certain spirituality that today is only found in certain religious orders.

The average diocesan priest or even priests outside of those religious orders that preserve this tradition, have never been exposed to this spirituality. You cannot teach what you have never experience. You can, because you experienced at the Cistercian monastery.

What we found was that in parishes where Franciscans and Augustinians operate, the people fell in line, because the friars and monks had a long tradition that they shared with the people. The people undestood it. They were excited to be part of the life of the friars or monks. In those parishes where this tradition was not present and the priest did not have the backgroiund, people were confused and Father couldn’t say anything more than, “We’re recovering the early Church.” That’s not quite the complete answer. The complete answer is that the liturgy of the early Church was never lost, just reduced to orders. Because Trent never imposed the Tridentine mass on these orders. They always had the option between the Tridentine form and their customs. There was no such word as “form”.

I can sympathize with the person who is confused and upset. I think that one of two things should happen.

a) Beef up our catechesis so that people can experience this spirituality

or

b) Limit the use to the religious orders that have preserved it

Eliminating is should never be an option, because it’s as much a part of Church History as is the Tridentine Form.

Neither A or B are going to be easy to implement. I can’t even imagine how to do so on a massive scale.

We need to remember that to those who have not had exposure to this spirituality, this simplicity can appear to look like a barren desert. On the other hand, those who never experienced it, should be open to hearing about it and try to understand its richness, rather than ignore it or pretend that it does not exist. In doing this, they impoverish themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[stephraim]

It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.

If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is legitimate and often advisable,

In other words, a priest is not required to celebrate versus populum, and can choose the ancient ad orientem, which is in line with the practice of the Roman Rite for centuries.

 

[Sirach2]

Isn’t that what “I” said a few posts ago, Stephraim?

OTOH, it is not entirely wrong for priests to celebrate VP, either, especially since they are under obedience to the diocesan bishop. Many articles have been written in attempts to deceive the faithful into believing VP is an abusive error, sad to say.

 

[stephraim]

Isn’t that what “I” said a few posts ago, Stephraim?

OTOH, it is not entirely wrong for priests to celebrate VP, either, especially since they are under obedience to the diocesan bishop. Many articles have been written in attempts to deceive the faithful into believing VP is an abusive error, sad to say.

If you did, I apologize. I didn’t read most of this thread. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

 

[JReducation]

Good gravy! If celebrating the mass VP were a sin, most of the Eastern Churches would be in serious trouble. It is incorrect to say that VP is wrong.

As I said above, one can look at where it comes from and reframe the question. “Is this something that most Catholics understand and appreciate or is it more of an obstacle?”

The answers are going to be varied.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF