"Oh but it wasn't how it was done at the last supper and in the early church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason_Matthew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
To add to what I wrote:

1.) By ‘men’ I meant ‘males’. In those days the congregation was segregated into men and women. Men and women attending at Mass stood separately, in opposing halves of the nave and the adjacent aisles: the men were at the southern side aisle(s), while the women were on the opposite side. (Viewed from the sanctuary, men are on the right-hand side, while women are on the left.) Of course, the higher your social status the closer you can get to the altar area via a reserved space adjacent to the sanctuary known as a senatorium (for men) or a matronaeum (for women).



This explains the design scheme of some ancient churches. Take Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna for example. From the men’s side aisle in the south you can see the mosaic on the northern clerestory walls showing Christ enthroned and male saints, while from the women’s aisle you can view the mosaic of Our Lady and female saints on the southern clerestory.

Now as mentioned, the deacon in Rome originally faced southwards (where the men were) when reading the gospel from the ambo, which back then was halfway down the church in the middle of the nave, where everyone could hear. (Where there were two ambos - as in San Clemente - he used the ambo on the northern side, whence he faced south.) This custom was curiously connected with St. Paul’s injunction that women be silent inside the church (1 Corinthians 13:33b-35).

So why and when did the deacon begin to face the north? The medieval liturgical treatise known as the Micrologus attributes it to the development of Low Mass: when deacons began to be scarce and not always available for every liturgy, priests began to take it upon themselves to read the gospel from the northern side of the altar - since that was where the gospel-book was placed. Deacons then began to emulate this custom and started reading the gospel facing the north as well, and by degrees this custom became the rule.

2.) In Ordo I, the subdeacons of the ecclesiastical districts of Rome stand on the opposite side of the altar facing the pope during the dialogue and the Preface, while the other clergy (the bishops, deacons, etc.) stand behind him.

The offertory being finished, the bishops stand behind the pontiff, the senior in the midst, and the rest in their order; the archdeacon standing on the right of the bishops, the second deacon on their left, and the rest in order arranged in a line. And the district-subdeacons go behind the altar at the end of the offertory and face the pontiff, so that when he says, For ever and ever, or, The Lord be with you, or, Lift up your hearts, or, Let us give thanks, they may be there to answer, standing upright, until the time when the choir begin to sing the angelical hymn, that is, Holy, holy, holy. And when they have finished it, the pontiff rises alone and enters on the canon. The bishops, however, and the deacons, subdeacons, and presbyters remain in the presbytery, and bow themselves down.

IMHO this might explain why the priest does not turn toward the people in the Dominus vobiscum during the Preface in the EF, since at that moment the subdeacons once made answer to the pope standing on the other side of the altar while facing him. On the other hand, there’s still the mystery of the pope not turning to the congregation on either side throughout the Postcommunion in Ordo I, a custom which somehow did not survive in the EF. :hmmm:
 
IMHO this might explain why the priest does not turn toward the people in the Dominus vobiscum during the Preface in the EF, since at that moment the subdeacons once made answer to the pope standing on the other side of the altar while facing him. On the other hand, there’s still the mystery of the pope not turning to the congregation on either side throughout the Postcommunion in Ordo I, a custom which somehow did not survive in the EF. :hmmm:
Perhaps then it would be worthwhile then to examine the history of the Dominus vobiscum in the Mass. What is its real purpose, as a sort of filler or break between the more formal prayers or readings? I have tried all kinds of searches on this but not to too much avail.
 
The mass itself is catechetical. So is the way it’s said and also the layout and furnishings of the Church in which it is said.

A TLM in a church with stained glass windows of saints, altar rails delimiting the sanctuary and a priest performing the rite in an unusual language, in fine vestments, with his back to you, tells the congregation that something special is going on.

COTT, kneeling, gives the lesson that the host is special.

Gregorian chant is evocative of Catholicism and holiness. It’s used in films to denote this.

So you can teach people quite a bit about the mass without having to lecture them.

Also, as the mass is primarily an offering to God and not a performance directed at the congregation (but rather said on their behalf or for the priest’s intention) . Therefore the latter shouldn’t be over-emphasised. It makes people think that their presence and prayers are essential to the mass, I believe; that if the priest says a mass ad-orientem, he’s ‘turning his back on them’, which is ludicrous in the context of what the rite is.
What you are referring to is NOT the substance of the Mass, it is the form of the particular Mass that YOU are comfortable with. (comfort can be a bad thing for the spiritual life) I happen to love the churches I grew up in with the forms of worship and architecture you mention. The stained glass windows and fine vestments etc are a beautiful attempt to express and reverence what is happening at the Mass, but they do not define and are not the substance of the Mass.

Respectfully, this attempt to narrowly define what liturgy is, is individual centered, not Church centered. It puts personal taste and form above the deeper reality of what is happening at Mass. The idea that everyone should embrace a Western European style of liturgy is just erroneous, and the Church does NOT endorse this viewpoint. Why should any Catholic?

And more than that, the boat has left this viewpoint standing at the shore long ago. There are millions of people worshiping in Cathoic Churches worldwide in all sorts of native garb, in different languages, playing drums and guitars etc…Contrary to what you are implying above, they worship at the same Sacrifice of the Mass as you do, and in no inferior or diminished way.
 
Also, as the mass is primarily an offering to God and not a performance directed at the congregation (but rather said on their behalf or for the priest’s intention) . Therefore the latter shouldn’t be over-emphasised. It makes people think that their presence and prayers are essential to the mass, I believe; that if the priest says a mass ad-orientem, he’s ‘turning his back on them’, which is ludicrous in the context of what the rite is.
We are called by the Church to full, conscious, and active participation in the Mass. What else can you want? The idea that the laity’s presence and prayers are not essential to the Mass might be very narrowly true, but are you serious? I would think God would like every human being to be present, actively participating.
The Mass could incorrectly be seen as a performance from either angle. Again, you are imposing your own personal filter on what the Mass is or is not. The focus is always on what is happening on the altar, not on the orientation of the priest and definitely not on your viewpoint of the externals.
 
What you are referring to is NOT the substance of the Mass, it is the form of the particular Mass that YOU are comfortable with. (comfort can be a bad thing for the spiritual life) I happen to love the churches I grew up in with the forms of worship and architecture you mention. The stained glass windows and fine vestments etc are a beautiful attempt to express and reverence what is happening at the Mass, but they do not define and are not the substance of the Mass.

Respectfully, this attempt to narrowly define what liturgy is, is individual centered, not Church centered. It puts personal taste and form above the deeper reality of what is happening at Mass. The idea that everyone should embrace a Western European style of liturgy is just erroneous, and the Church does NOT endorse this viewpoint. Why should any Catholic?

And more than that, the boat has left this viewpoint standing at the shore long ago. There are millions of people worshiping in Cathoic Churches worldwide in all sorts of native garb, in different languages, playing drums and guitars etc…Contrary to what you are implying above, they worship at the same Sacrifice of the Mass as you do, and in no inferior or diminished way.
That is the same reasoning that I have been asserting in my posts throughout the thread. The Holy See gives equal credence to the OF and EF forms. Never implying one is favored or not. I know as humans we have strong convictions that lead us to favor things in our comfort zones. We need to embrace the fullness of truth that the Catholic Church offers with its beautiful two forms of the Mass. Remember, we are called to love God and love our neighbor, first and foremost. I see discourse from parish to parish that are only miles apart in our area. This is not what God wants. He wants us to worship in Unity. Mankind’s ego is going to be his downfall.
 
The focus is always on what is happening on the altar, not on the orientation of the priest and definitely not on your viewpoint of the externals.
So what are you saying? That outward signs and visuals are not important? What about vestments, kissing of the altar, extending arms upward, etc.? Is this all a waste of time, and that just telling us it’s a sacrifice makes it so?
 
So what are you saying? That outward signs and visuals are not important? What about vestments, kissing of the altar, extending arms upward, etc.? Is this all a waste of time, and that just telling us it’s a sacrifice makes it so?
All Celebrants of the OF Mass preform all of these gestures you speak of. Are you saying that this is only done in the EF Mass?
 
All Celebrants of the OF Mass preform all of these gestures you speak of. Are you saying that this is only done in the EF Mass?
Did I mention the form of the Mass? Or any Rite, for that matter? This thread is about how it was done in the early centuries, or at least, this is what the title suggests.
 
So what are you saying? That outward signs and visuals are not important? What about vestments, kissing of the altar, extending arms upward, etc.? Is this all a waste of time, and that just telling us it’s a sacrifice makes it so?
Did I say that?
Did I?
Really did I?
 
Did I mention the form of the Mass? Or any Rite, for that matter? This thread is about how it was done in the early centuries, or at least, this is what the title suggests.
One must not go by title alone, but must look at the content of the OP. The OP suggested that the Tridentine form of the Mass should not be used, and my assertion through the whole thread is that both forms, OF and EF are allowed and valid in accordance with the Holy See.
 
One must not go by title alone, but must look at the content of the OP. The OP suggested that the Tridentine form of the Mass should not be used, …
You may have a point there. The OP hasn’t returned to clarify his position based on ensuing arguments.
 
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.

Versus populum is one of those things. Now you have the priest in your eyeline doing things, facing you. The focus is on him, most of the time. A performance aimed at the congregation.

There’s been a deliberate attempt to ‘bring it to the people’. I don’t think that movement suits a sacred rite; it’s supposed to be something special. I think it works against inspiring people with thoughts of Heaven, Hell, Death and Judgement if you have a small child reading from the pulpit at a funeral mass, for example.

I think we’re slowly finding out that our forebears did things they way they did because they worked.
I think this nonsense. It’s what you make of it. To think that the people are gullible enough to think it’s a show put on by the priest is to not think very highly of the laity. Some may think that way but it insults the intelligence of those of us who know better.

My Christian journey certainly isn’t dependent on the orientation of the priest. Intelligent arguments supporting either orientation can be made, but they do very little to foster the true inner transformation required for any genuine spiritual union with Christ.
 
What is a mass? It is only its externals, to an observer. One can’t see piety. So if you do something rather than nothing, you should do things which evoke the purpose of the rite: propitiating God, adoration, thanksgiving and petitioning. You do it in a building that demonstrates this purpose.

It’s a constant theme on this forum: catechesis. The laity are ignorant. Yet in the rite itself the opportunity to teach is muddled by attempts to involve the laity and embrace sentiment. Bare churches don’t help either. After a couple of generations of this you have the ignorant teaching the ignorant.

I would like Roman Catholic diocesan churches in the West to say the black and do the red and for clergy to think twice before embracing novelty. None of the things that irritate traditionalists are actually touted as normative by senior clergy. But still the new accretions accumulate.

With regard to the start of this thread: Going back to the Last Supper is what Cranmer wanted. Catholics shouldn’t fall for this line of argument. The result for the Latin Rite is destructive.
 
What is a mass? It is only its externals, to an observer. One can’t see piety. So if you do something rather than nothing, you should do things which evoke the purpose of the rite: propitiating God, adoration, thanksgiving and petitioning. You do it in a building that demonstrates this purpose.

It’s a constant theme on this forum: catechesis. The laity are ignorant. Yet in the rite itself the opportunity to teach is muddled by attempts to involve the laity and embrace sentiment. Bare churches don’t help either. After a couple of generations of this you have the ignorant teaching the ignorant.

I would like Roman Catholic diocesan churches in the West to say the black and do the red and for clergy to think twice before embracing novelty. None of the things that irritate traditionalists are actually touted as normative by senior clergy. But still the new accretions accumulate.

With regard to the start of this thread: Going back to the Last Supper is what Cranmer wanted. Catholics shouldn’t fall for this line of argument. The result for the Latin Rite is destructive.
Huh? I really don’t know where to begin organizing a rebuttal to this, so I’ll just point you to some reading with authentic teaching from the Church, which directly contradicts what you have been saying.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Just a couple of handy tid bits from SC:

"Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members."

And further down:

…10. Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that **all **who are made sons of God by faith and baptism **should come together **to praise God in the midst of His Church, **to take part in **the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord’s supper.

The liturgy in its turn moves the faithful, filled with “the paschal sacraments,” to be “one in holiness” [26]; it prays that “they may hold fast in their lives to what they have grasped by their faith” [27]; the renewal in the Eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and man **draws the faithful into the compelling love of Christ **and sets them on fire. From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, as from a font, grace is poured forth upon us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of the Church are directed as toward their end, is achieved in the most efficacious possible way.
 
  1. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.
 
  1. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, the **holy people united and ordered under their bishops **[33]
Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they concern the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their differing rank, office, and actual participation.
  1. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
    This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments, even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature.
 
37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
 
That’s interesting, but your implication from that document, if I understand it correctly (that Mass is primarily a community affair) doesn’t seem to take account of private masses said only with 1 server in attendance. These serve the 4 ends of the mass and do not have a congregation.

Those are good quotes. They show how interpreting Sacrosanctum Consilium in a populist way helped lead to the modern mass as seen in most Western churches today.

Active participation means the laity praying along with the mass, except for those words proper to the priest, AFAIK. It doesn’t mean lively outer participation. But it can be interpreted that way. That’s part of the problem.

A clarification of the meaning of such documents would be good. Perhaps the talks with the SSPX might bring this about as a by-product. It would be most welcome.
 
That’s interesting, but your implication from that document, if I understand it correctly (that Mass is primarily a community affair) doesn’t seem to take account of private masses said only with 1 server in attendance. These serve the 4 ends of the mass and do not have a congregation.

Those are good quotes. They show how interpreting Sacrosanctum Consilium in a populist way helped lead to the modern mass as seen in most Western churches today.

Active participation means the laity praying along with the mass, except for those words proper to the priest, AFAIK. It doesn’t mean lively outer participation. But it can be interpreted that way. That’s part of the problem.

A clarification of the meaning of such documents would be good. Perhaps the talks with the SSPX might bring this about as a by-product. It would be most welcome.
Sir,that’s why the Catholic Church has a pope and bishops, and the concept of obedience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top