OF and V II

[Warrenton]

In the long run, it is merely personal preference, yes?

I don’t think so because everything in the mass communicates a message.

Did you catch my point about obedience and submission?

I did, but that’s not my focus. I’m asking how changes were made, what were the reasons for changes, and where the ideas came from.

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

That’s all fine and good - but the Commission was made of people, and the people had methods, motivations, and understandings.

Saying such and such a Commission was convened after such and such a gathering of bishops to make such an such changes that were never mentioned by the previous gathering does not answer the question I posed.

The how and the why things are done is as interesting as what gets done.

 

[Warrenton]

*** 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.

I read all Brother’s posts with interest. Of course, with anything as old as the mass, there is going to a tremendous amount of variation over time - and one can find an example of almost anything occurring at one time or another.

Therefore, I do not doubt that in some Franciscan or other communities, the altar may have been arranged such that mass was said facing the assembly.

However, I question whether this was ever the norm for parish churches, or whether it was the norm in cloistered communities in general. Because of this, it seems unlikely that the change in orientation was based on a high medieval precedent.

First, one would expect to see some discussion of the tradition in the GIRM or even in the Vatican 2 documents. Based on the excerpts linked in some related OPs, one does not see this. As you know, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is a long work, something may be in there - please let me know if you find it.

Second, the religious communities often assembled in choir stalls. Many of these stalls have survived and are among the best examples of medieval woodwork that remains. They are arranged such that the worshiper faces inward to the chancel from the side - basically, 45 degrees from the normal “front on” view of parish churches. Makes sense, since they were singing.

Granted, my experience of these medieval churches is from England, which was primarilly Benedictine. Perhaps the Benedictine arrangement was different than Cistercians, whose houses do not seem to have survived except as ruins (eg, Tintern Abbey). Also, the stalls I have seen dated from the 1300s or the 1400s, not the late 1100s or 1200s, so there may have been some retrogression during the course of the period. A picture of Fontrevault Abbey (Cistercian) in France showed the high altar against the rear wall of the apse, where one would expect it in a pre V2 church.

Third, the orthodox monastic communities seem also to adhere to the pre Vatican 2 orientation. It’s hard to find photos of the actual altar during a service, but from the photos of the interiors of the monastery churces on the internet, the consecration seems takes place on a very small altar separated from the brothers by the iconostasis.

There are also very plain, very ancient chapels in Southern France that are similar to the catacomb churches, where the altar is placed against the wall.

Brother JR mentioned the orientation employed by Martin Luther being an adaptation of the Augustinian tradition - and this is possible. I seem to recall he explained his reasoning, but I’ll have to find it. Fortunately, Martin Luther wrote a lot of his ideas down. I do wonder, however, if perhaps Martin Luther applied the monastic practive of reading lessons from a central lectern in the middle of the chancel to the mass?

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read the following article:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1451

Peace,
Ed

 

[TimothyH]

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.

Dragging up an old thread here, maybe just for my own sentimentality, but I managed to cap a picture off of a video showing the sanctuary at the Monastery of the Holy Spirit, on a day other than when I was there, but it is the sanctuary where I stood.

I would have stood about three steps to the left of the leftmost monk in the picture. They seem to be all priests in this picture. The rest of the brothers would have been behind the camera.



-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Dragging up an old thread here, maybe just for my own sentimentality, but I managed to cap a picture off of a video showing the sanctuary at the Monastery of the Holy Spirit, on a day other than when I was there, but it is the sanctuary where I stood.

I would have stood about three steps to the left of the leftmost monk in the picture. They seem to be all priests in this picture. The rest of the brothers would have been behind the camera.

http://timhollingworth.webs.com/img/Holy.Spirit.Monastery.Sanctuary.JPG

-Tim-

That’s a very conventual (convent) arrangement. If I’m not mistaken, the Dominicans, Carmelites and Cathusians had a different floor plan, because they each have their own rite.

The Benedictines, Augustinians and Franciscans used this very simple and austere floor plan for their conventual chapels, and even for some of the parishes that they build, depending on what the local bishop allowed. The parishes are always the property of the bishop, regardless of who builds it.

However, some bishops allow the orders to build according to their needs and their spirituality, because very often, the order is paying for the construction, even though the diocese is going to take ownership of it. This is not the case in the conventual chapel. The diocese cannot take ownership of the religious house, unless the diocese provided it in the first place. Even if the diocese provides it, such as it does for those who work in parishes, the religious reserve the right to change the chapel around to fit their customs. While they live in that house, the laity pays the bills, the bishop owns it, but the religious have full authority over it.

Notice the curtain behind them. It is customary in monasteries to have a chapel for the Blessed Sacrament adjacent to the sanctuary, but not part of the sanctuary. In some houses they have this arrangement and in others they have the tabernacle set into the wall with doors that they can close during the mass so that the tabernacle is not part of the mass.

In Franciscan houses, the tabernacle was always on a pedestal behind the altar. That was because they were too poor to afford a better setup. They introduced the tabernacle front center all over Europe and later the Americas. Compared the monastic tradition, the Franciscans are infants. Franciscan tradition is only 800 years old. Monasticism is over 1700 years old.

In this Carthusian chapel,

View attachment 12281 You can see the tabernacle glistening in the front and center when the chapel is being used for choir choir

View attachment 12282 The tabernacle is covered when the chapel is used for mass.

Instead of rails, they set off the sanctuary with posts.

In the Cistercian chapel they set off the sanctuary with steps.

If you look at the chapel on EWTN, the sanctuary is also set off with a step.

Much of what we see in parishes is actually transferred over from religious life.

In some places there are a lot of hard feelings over this, because some lay people are telling religious that they don’t appreciate their customs. Religious are taking it to mean that they are not wanted and they are actually leaving parishes, which is creating a problem for bishops who don’t have another religious community to step in or enough diocesan priests to step in. I know one place that went from a parish of eight religious to one diocesan priest, because of this conflict. At the end, the church was already built and the diocesan priest was not going to put money into changing it. It turned out to be a sad situation that achieved nothing.

The lesson to be learned is that we must be careful how we say things and what we ask for.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1: