H
h1478971
Guest
how should the OF be celebrated in order to make it in conformity with the intentions of the Council Vat II
- Status
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/
Read through all the parts needed.
Read through all the parts needed.
W
Warrenton
Guest
The GIRM says that mass should be said facing the people whenever possible.
Why?
Why?
P
promethius
Guest
Because if it’s not in vernacular, audible, and facing the people, then the self-appointed liturgy police will have nothing to pay attention to during mass!
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Which section of the GIRM please?
C
choliks
Guest
I read through Chapter 4… mentioned in 124 and 146.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Whether or not it is contained in the GIRM, I can’t say without reading the entire document (which I haven’t the desire to do to answer this inquiry). However, the directive IS contained in this document, Chapter V.
Lest anyone think to question the authority of this instruction, we find the papal mandate in the Introduction:
W
Warrenton
Guest
Thank you for the links - I am familiar with the documents, but your links work much better.
Obviously, my question was not clear. I should have framed it this way: “Does any one know the motive for changing which direction the priest faces?”
A
archangel04
Guest
I asked the same question a while ago, apparently there is some misinterpretation with the English when it come to the direction in which the priest faces. IMHO facing the people doesn’t hold a candle again ad-orientem.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Keyword = apparently. Again, you have been misinformed by whomever. The person “apparently” wanted to instill false rationalization with regard to this directive. Here’s the appropriate translation.
That the altar should be built away from the wall, so that
can easily** turn**** it around and celebrate facing the people**. And occupy a place as
important sacred building that is really where the heart spontaneously
converges the attention of the whole assembly of the faithful.
Observe what is required by law about the matter that must be built and
adorn the altar.
In addition, the chancel around the altar will be so great that they can develop
comfortably in the sacred rites.
Conviene que el altar mayor se construya separado de la pared, de modo que se
pueda girar fácilmente en torno a él y celebrar de cara al pueblo. Y ocupará un lugar tan importante en el edificio sagrado que sea realmente el centro adonde espontáneamente converja la atención de toda la asamblea de los fieles.
Obsérvese lo que prescribe el derecho acerca de la materia con que debe edificarse y
adornarse el altar.
Además, el presbiterio alrededor del altar tendrá tal amplitud que se puedan desarrollar cómodamente en el los ritos sagrados.
A
archangel04
Guest
A
archangel04
Guest
BTW when was I misinformed the first time? Make it sound like all I do is bring misinformation.
S
Sirach2
Guest
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.
A
amlcssr
Guest
This deserves to be expanded instead of expecting everyone to follow the link:
From Fr. Z:
In the National Catholic Register of 7-14 April 2002, a statement was made that, according to the new GIRM, it is now preferable to celebrate Mass “facing the people.” If the Register is making this mistake, it would appear that there was some serious damage caused from the mistranslation of #299 used by the bishops. Let us look at #299. The last time we examined it at length was in the third article of WDTPRS for the 2nd Sunday of Advent in the year 2000:
Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.
The English version in BLS (above) is faulty. The translator failed to see that quod refers back to the main clause of the sentence. The bishops’ translator fell into the common trap of translating the Latin word by word, rather than reading the whole sentence. Their translator made #299 read as if there is a preference or even a requirement in the law itself to celebrate Mass facing the people. But #299 indicates nothing of the kind. That paragraph really says:
The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out. (Emphases added)
This paragraph explains the distance of separation from the wall: at least far enough so that it can be used from either side, rather than just an inch or two of separation. 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.
And a Q-and-A from the post:
AM says:
…, I still don’t understand why that quod doesn’t refer back to celebratio which is the nearest (actually the only) accusative neuter noun. Why doesn’t it mean “Altars should be built thus-and-so, so that such-and-such a (desirable) celebration is possible”? That seems to accord better with the answer from the CDW, who refer to the people “participating in the celebrations”.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:
AM: celebratio is feminine, not neuter. The tio ending is your clue that the noun is feminine.
S
Sirach2
Guest
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.
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.
J
JReducation
Guest
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
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
T
TimothyH
Guest
Your explanation makes sense in light of what I have experienced at the Cistercian monastery.
The sancturary is big and the altar is right in the middle. And all the brothers - priests and non priests - move to the sanctuary during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The priests were between the tabernacle and the altar concelbrating and the brothers who are not priests were spread out around the nave side of the sanctuary, but all the brothers are up in the sanctuary during the consecration.
Even the men who were on vocations retreat were told prior to Mass that we would follow the brothers up to the sanctuary, and I remember asking the monk if that were permitted. Coming from a Roman Catholic N.O. parish, it just didn’t seem right being up there. The brothers stood and I remember fighting the urge to kneel. But it was very special for me to experience it. There were dozens of lay people off the street for the Sunday Mass and they were waaaaay back behind the chior stalls in the pews, benches really.
I had also asked one of the brothers whom I knew was a priest if I should address the priests as Father or Brother. He said that people become Cistercian monks to be Brother’s first, that you don’t become a Cistercian because you want to be a priest, and that I should address everyone as Brother. That also made me a little uneasy, to have a priest address me as Brother and me address him as the same title also didn’t feel quite right to me.
Interestingly, many more were priests than I would have thought. One younger Brother was even a deacon. But other than vesting for Mass, it was difficult to tell who was a priest and who wasn’t.
-Tim-
J
JReducation
Guest
This is not a Protestant idea at all. Many people think it is, because the laity rarely got to see what you saw. Remembering that Luther was an Augustinian, it would make sense that he would take with him a very ancient custom or form of building sanctuaries that was very familiar to him.
It’s actually Luther who made it popular outside of the conventual life, but it is not a Lutheran conception. 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.
The laity was not allowed around the altar, not because it was a sin, but because of the rule of enclosure. Only those who were consecrated men could step inside the enclosure. It’s important to understand that a man is not consecrated, because he is ordained.
In fact the rite is called the Rite or Ordination, not the Rite of Consecration. The Rite of Consecration is only for brothers, nuns and sisters. At an ordination, the hands of the priest are consecrated so that he can consecrate the Eucharist, but his person is not consecrated. He reamains part of the secular world as a secular man. At a consecration or what today we call profession of vows, the Catholic man or woman is consecrated. From that point forward he or she is no longer part of the secular world. He enters into what we call the Consecrated State.
After this, a man, with the permission of his superior or if it’s the custom of his religious community, may be ordained. In the case of the Cistercians, Trappists, Franciscans, Benedictines and Augustinians, ordination is not a requirement for their way of life.
Therefore, when they built their chapels or monastery churches, they built them with a brotherhood in mind. As you say, they usually hard large sanctuaries that allowed everyone to stand around the altar. Even when the priest is facing east, he’s facing his brothers.
Franciscan chapels tend to me more modest than the Cistercians chapels. A typical Franciscan chapel would be what you see on EWTN. Because the sanctuary is very small, there are no communion rails. If you put those in, then you have break up the brotherhood. The brotherhood comes to the altar to ofer the sacrifice and to offer itself as one body with Christ. The ordained brother or the priest, is the servant of the rest. He leads them as a servant lights the way for his master walking down a dark corridor.
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.
My impression is that the monks and the friars can appreciate the idea of the altar away from the wall, the community gathered around the altar, the priest facing east and yet facing his brothers, the unity of the brothers as one body being led by one of their own as a servant, the sacred duty of the ordained religious to his brothers in religion and all of the history behind it. The average man and woman in the pew does not have the background that these friars and monks have.
Unfortunately, this kind of history is rarely taught outside of novitiates. Even diocesan priests or priests who belong to clerical orders such as Dominicans and Jesuits, don’t know these meanings, unless they take special courses in Church History and the history of religious life. Most do not, because it’s not required in their formation program. This is a very specific area of study.
I think it’s only now that the laity is beginning to show an interest for this area of Church History. Many of my friends who are diocesan priests are always asking me, “Why do men religious do this or that?”
One diocesan priest asked me why we never see the Franciscan Friars at the mass on EWTN. I laughed and said, because if the laity ever saw a fraternity of friars at mass, they would be scandalized. Not because the friars do anything wrong, but because the tradition is so different that people would think that they were doing something wrong. As Tim has explained, it’s a different expression of the same theology.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TimothyH
Guest
Every hair on my body is on end and I want to cry right now. Words can’t explain how beautiful the weekend I spent there was. Not just the Mass, but all of it, and I desperately wanted to go back.
Part of my heart is still in that Abbey Church. My visit there changed my life. Dogma doesn’t matter so much. The monks just accept it, like the need to breathe or the efficacy of gravity. The teaching of the Church is a given. I was really unprepared for the whole experience.
Your words captured part of that beauty and peace that I felt that weekend, and brought many things I have wondered about, and want to return to ask the Monks about, into clarity.
Thank you Brother.
-Tim-
- Status