There have been changes and arguments over translations from language to language as long as the the Bible has been translated. Many mistakes have been made in the past and have been corrected. It is not up to me as a a Catholic to question the approved liturgy that the Vatican says is the true translation. It is my responsibility to accept it.
This allowance was subsequently narrowed down somewhat:
I have yet to hear it done solely in the vernacular, flawed or otherwise.
I can not comment on the EF Mass content or how it is preformed as I have not been to one since I was a child. Also, I would wonder whether the EF Mass you frequent is a High Mass or a Low Mass. It would, from what I read, make a difference.
I did say that it was a quote of the rules of the forumn…
Do you know that the mass used to be versus populum and then it changed because of the private masses at the side chapels? Be careful because versus populum has nothing to do with ad orientem, the Mass used to be ad orientem et versus populum. The orientation of the churches, doors facing to west instead of east, changed when the posture of the priests followed the position of the private Masses including the awkward turning around for the “Domine vobiscum”. Mixing all the things that you do not like in the same argument does not make an argument stronger.
I think you’re mistaken about how and when the change occurred. I read a fascinating book that covered this topic and you’d be amazing to learn that some of the earliest intact churches (the one in question is of 3rd century origin, if i recall) were built so that the priest and people all face the same way. I’ll go see if I can find the book.
I don’t know about the turning but “Domine vobiscum” seems to be awkward.
Probably Turning Toward the Lord by Fr. Uwe Lang? Very informative book. He does indeed torpedo the theory that versus populum was the norm and ad apsidem was a later innovation.
San Giovanni in Laterano is ad orienten et versum populum.
Actually, it is more accurate to say that in Rome, the celebrant faced the church doors, since Roman churches were built with the facade to the east and the apse with the altar to the west and had the so-called confessio, a sort of recess or small chamber sunk below floor level immediately in front of the altar area which enabled people to come close to the tomb of a saint buried beneath the altar. These churches (St. Peter’s is a prime example) were literally built over the tombs of the martyrs, because the attitude of the time was against disturbing the martyr’s resting place. In other words, the church was brought to the martyr (no matter whatever obstacles may be encountered), not the martyr to the church.
What is most affecting about the modern mass is all the changes that have occurred together, almost at once, in historical terms. Their cumulative effect is striking.
Hedonism has always existed. So have modernists, but they haven’t had as huge an opportunity to assault the Church as in the post-VII confusion.
How dare the Church “bring it to the people”??.
!!!Yes it’s all so imperfect. The digraced King, with his bloody beaten head, his flayed back, his beaten body nailed shamefully to a Roman cross while his mother watches, his followers scattered afar in fear and failure and disgrace. What kind of church can that be? Where are the shirts and ties and little white bonnets? Where is the shiny communion rail and the Latin? Oh, the soldiers speak Latin? oH…
Yes, Christ’s apostles abandoned Him at the Cross. This has generally been recognized as an error. Hence why it’s preferable for Catholics to come to Mass.
If it’s “down” then it has to have dropped from a level where it was previously higher. So yes, the drastic fall of Mass attendance is a problem.
Every month without fail there’s a report about how an outrageously high number of polled Catholics reported that the Eucharist is ‘just a symbol or memorial’. It’s not anecdotal. People are leaving the Catholic Church without even knowing what she teaches.
FWIW, Dominus vobiscum is also said not facing the people at the Preface and at the Gospel. (I think they missed the one right after the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.)
The reason’s simple. One, there was yet no formalized Prayers at the Foot of the Altar at the time of Ordo I, and two, the deacon read the gospel from the ambo facing the men on the southern side aisle (as opposed to the north in the EF), as per Ordo Romanus II.
Which leaves us with the Preface.