Priest's Orientation during Mass

[benedictgal]

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am not saying that the liturgy is not Catholic, or that the **Mass **is unimportant. I am saying that the **form of the liturgy **is unimportant. I know the Church cares about the form, and I let the Church deal with that. The form of the liturgy just does not matter to me. I have personal preferences in music, and so forth. But I know they are preferences and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Mass, its validity, or its efficacy.

More importantly, I know that being Catholic is not about attending Mass. It is about living my life as a faithful Christian and trying everyday to live out the two new commandments Christ left us with.

I know it matters to some people. I guess I don’t really understand why they feel so strongly. It doesn’t matter to me. Its not my thing. If after I die some saint or angel or whatever told me that every single Mass I ever participated in was done ‘wrong’ it would not concern me.

So why do people care so deeply? Mostly people mention that they think their preferred form is more reverant or more spiritual or both. I’m sure the people on the other side of whatever issue is being argued feel the same way about their preferences.

If you are a Catholic, as yoiu claim to be, then going to Mass is your chief obligation, as a Catholic. It follows the comandment of loving God. Jesus never abrogated the 10 commandments, the third of which is to “Keep Holy the Lord’s Day.” You cannot reconcile being Catholic and not giving importance to the Mass.

As to the form in which the Mass is celebrated, no less than the prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Francis Cardinal Arinze, made the statement that is the right of every Catholic that the Mass be celebrated according to the norms of the Church. How we celebrate the Mass is very crucial. This is not a simple remembrance meal, as someone on this thread seems to espouse. This is the Holy Sacrifice that we offer to God the Father, in union with Christ, the Lamb of God (who is our sacrifical and paschal Victim). The priest’s orientation at the Mass helps us to orient our prayer towards the Lord and not focus on the person (or personality) of the priest.

Your attitude denotes a false sense of “spiritual relativism” that our Holy Father has constantly warned us against having.

 

[TMC]

If you are a Catholic, as yoiu claim to be, then going to Mass is your chief obligation, as a Catholic.

I am sorry, but this I believe that this statement misconstrues the Catholic faith and teaching. Mass attendence is the first precept of the Church but it is not the “chief obligation” of a Catholic.

All of the precepts are designed, not as ends in themselves, but as a means to help us live as Christ taught, that is, to love God and our neighbors. From the catechism:

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

Our chief obligation is to love, and the point of the liturgy is to help us to fulfill this, the true obligation of our faith:

1112 The mission of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy of the Church is to prepare the assembly to encounter Christ; to recall and manifest Christ to the faith of the assembly; to make the saving work of Christ present and active by his transforming power; and to make the gift of communion bear fruit in the Church.

If the Mass does not bear fruit, it doesn’t matter what liturgy you use. And I just don’t think the form of the liturgy effects the fruit.

It follows the comandment of loving God. Jesus never abrogated the 10 commandments, the third of which is to “Keep Holy the Lord’s Day.” You cannot reconcile being Catholic and not giving importance to the Mass.

Again, I never said the Mass was unimportant. The form of liturgy is unimportant. The Mass is important because it helps us to keep Christ’s commandments, in part by allowing the opportunity to directly encounter Christ, in part by giving us opportunity to give love and worship, and in many other ways. The form of the Mass does not, to me, effect any of this.

As to the form in which the Mass is celebrated, no less than the prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Francis Cardinal Arinze, made the statement that is the right of every Catholic that the Mass be celebrated according to the norms of the Church. How we celebrate the Mass is very crucial. This is not a simple remembrance meal, as someone on this thread seems to espouse. This is the Holy Sacrifice that we offer to God the Father, in union with Christ, the Lamb of God (who is our sacrifical and paschal Victim). The priest’s orientation at the Mass helps us to orient our prayer towards the Lord and not focus on the person (or personality) of the priest.

We have the right to a Mass that is in accord with the Church’s teachings, not in accord with our preferences. I have said I leave that up to the Church officials, including my own pastor. If he thinks its good enough, I’m not gainsaying him.

Your attitude denotes a false sense of “spiritual relativism” that our Holy Father has constantly warned us against having.

How so? I take spirtual relativism to be the attitude that all faiths are equal or good enough or good for that person or some such. How does what I have said fit into that, or am I defining the term wrong?

 

[benedictgal]

I am sorry, but this I believe that this statement misconstrues the Catholic faith and teaching. Mass attendence is the first precept of the Church but it is not the “chief obligation” of a Catholic.

All of the precepts are designed, not as ends in themselves, but as a means to help us live as Christ taught, that is, to love God and our neighbors. From the catechism:

Our chief obligation is to love, and the point of the liturgy is to help us to fulfill this, the true obligation of our faith:

If the Mass does not bear fruit, it doesn’t matter what liturgy you use. And I just don’t think the form of the liturgy effects the fruit.

Again, I never said the Mass was unimportant. The form of liturgy is unimportant. The Mass is important because it helps us to keep Christ’s commandments, in part by allowing the opportunity to directly encounter Christ, in part by giving us opportunity to give love and worship, and in many other ways. The form of the Mass does not, to me, effect any of this.

We have the right to a Mass that is in accord with the Church’s teachings, not in accord with our preferences. I have said I leave that up to the Church officials, including my own pastor. If he thinks its good enough, I’m not gainsaying him.

Your attitude denotes a false sense of “spiritual relativism” that our Holy Father has constantly warned us against having.

How so? I take spirtual relativism to be the attitude that all faiths are equal or good enough or good for that person or some such. How does what I have said fit into that, or am I defining the term wrong?

It is most regrettable that you have a very poor understanding of Catholicism. Our first obligation as Catholics is to render to God the worship that is rightfully due to Him. All other things cannot flow unless we do that first. While you may not have said the Mass is unimportant, your attitude is to the contrary.

“Spiritual relativism” fits itno what you are saying because you do not give the Mass the appropriate weight it deserves. The Council Fathers taught (and the Church consistently reaffirms) that the Mass is the “source and summit” of our lives as Catholics. To be flippant is to relativize the Mass. When you say that it is more important for you to “love”, you denigrate the supreme importance of the Mass.

How we celebrate the Mass is of utmost importance. The Mass is not something that we “create”. It is a gift from God, Himself. The priest leads us in prayer. His orientation towards the Lord should be indicative of His office. Perhaps you would do yourself well to seek out sound and well-grounded Traditional Catholic teaching on the Mass.

 

[TMC]

Your attitude denotes a false sense of “spiritual relativism” that our Holy Father has constantly warned us against having.

How so? I take spirtual relativism to be the attitude that all faiths are equal or good enough or good for that person or some such. How does what I have said fit into that, or am I defining the term wrong?

It is most regrettable that you have a very poor understanding of Catholicism. Our first obligation as Catholics is to render to God the worship that is rightfully due to Him. All other things cannot flow unless we do that first. While you may not have said the Mass is unimportant, your attitude is to the contrary.

“Spiritual relativism” fits itno what you are saying because you do not give the Mass the appropriate weight it deserves. The Council Fathers taught (and the Church consistently reaffirms) that the Mass is the “source and summit” of our lives as Catholics. To be flippant is to relativize the Mass. When you say that it is more important for you to “love”, you denigrate the supreme importance of the Mass.

How we celebrate the Mass is of utmost importance. The Mass is not something that we “create”. It is a gift from God, Himself. The priest leads us in prayer. His orientation towards the Lord should be indicative of His office. Perhaps you would do yourself well to seek out sound and well-grounded Traditional Catholic teaching on the Mass.

I think we have a completely different view of what it means to be Catholic. As for your last comment, I am not sure what you mean by “Traditional Catholic”, but I am well grounded in the teachings of the Church, thank you.

 

[benedictgal]

How so? I take spirtual relativism to be the attitude that all faiths are equal or good enough or good for that person or some such. How does what I have said fit into that, or am I defining the term wrong?

It is most regrettable that you have a very poor understanding of Catholicism. Our first obligation as Catholics is to render to God the worship that is rightfully due to Him. All other things cannot flow unless we do that first. While you may not have said the Mass is unimportant, your attitude is to the contrary.

“Spiritual relativism” fits itno what you are saying because you do not give the Mass the appropriate weight it deserves. The Council Fathers taught (and the Church consistently reaffirms) that the Mass is the “source and summit” of our lives as Catholics. To be flippant is to relativize the Mass. When you say that it is more important for you to “love”, you denigrate the supreme importance of the Mass.

How we celebrate the Mass is of utmost importance. The Mass is not something that we “create”. It is a gift from God, Himself. The priest leads us in prayer. His orientation towards the Lord should be indicative of His office. Perhaps you would do yourself well to seek out sound and well-grounded Traditional Catholic teaching on the Mass.

I think we have a completely different view of what it means to be Catholic. As for your last comment, I am not sure what you mean by “Traditional Catholic”, but I am well grounded in the teachings of the Church, thank you.

If you were “well grounded in the teachings of the Church”, you would understand the supreme importance of the Mass. This is the viewpoint shared by generations of Catholics, most especially those who gave their lives in martyrdom because, as the 400 North African martyrs said during the 4th century, they “could not live without Sunday.” Many members of the Church, laity and clergy alike, gave up their lives for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Read the lives of martyrs like Blessed Miguel Pro and modern-day clergy like Archbishop Romero (who was shot dead at the moment of the Consecration). Their love for God and for their fellow man flowed from the Mass.

 

[TMC]

If you were “well grounded in the teachings of the Church”, you would understand the supreme importance of the Mass. This is the viewpoint shared by generations of Catholics, most especially those who gave their lives in martyrdom because, as the 400 North African martyrs said during the 4th century, they “could not live without Sunday.” Many members of the Church, laity and clergy alike, gave up their lives for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Read the lives of martyrs like Blessed Miguel Pro and modern-day clergy like Archbishop Romero (who was shot dead at the moment of the Consecration). Their love for God and for their fellow man flowed from the Mass.

You keep saying that I don’t place importance on the Mass, even though I say that I do. It is the form of the liturgy that is umimportant. Do you think all those Saints and Martyrs used the same form of the liturgy? I’ll grant you that it seems from this conversation that you place more importance on the Mass than I do. It does not follow that the Mass is unimportant to me.

You say that for these Saints “Their love of God and for their fellow man flowed from the Mass.” That may be true, I don’t know. My love of God and my love of others is strengthened by the Mass, as I believe I noted. For me it does not flow from the Mass, it flows from the love that flows to me from Christ. That love is manifest in the Mass, but it is manifest in many other ways as well. And none of this has anything to do with my first post, which was entirely about the form of the liturgy. The liturgy is not the Mass.

 

[japhy]

You keep saying that I don’t place importance on the Mass, even though I say that I do. It is the form of the liturgy that is umimportant. Do you think all those Saints and Martyrs used the same form of the liturgy?

Are you familiar with “lex orandi, lex credendi”? It means the law of prayer is the law of belief: how we pray affects what we believe. The form of the liturgy is important, because the less and less formal and reverent it is, the less we’ll actually believe about God.

Case in point: many Catholics don’t believe (or perhaps were never even taught) that the Eucharist the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and not a symbol thereof. They receive a “piece of bread” in their hands and munch on it like popcorn, and wash it down with a “gulp of wine”. I saw a boy last Saturday drop his Host, look at it, then pick it up when instructed by the EMHC, then walk away about to put it in his pocket. Someone had to rush down the aisle to stop him.

When people go to Mass in shorts and the jersey of their favorite football player, or wearing sweats and those absolutely wretched new rubber sandal-type things on their feet, that says something about what they think of the event they’re coming to.

How we pray affects our faith. The form of the liturgy is important. If it wasn’t why did the Second Vatican Council seek to reform it?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I could have sworn that is was the Mass that made us Catholic.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Case in point: many Catholics don’t believe (or perhaps were never even taught) that the Eucharist the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and not a symbol thereof. They receive a “piece of bread” in their hands and munch on it like popcorn, and wash it down with a “gulp of wine”.

That is absolutely untrue.

You can’t make claims like that about people just because of how they dress in church.

What about people who wear suits to mass? Some people think thatps horrible. Here’s what they think: People wearing suits bringing the very symbol of the power of the oppression they wield against the poor into mass. How DARE they receive the eucharist in such a state.

If you don’t like that kind of judgement, then how about not judging others. Worry about what YOU believe, not what some imaginary apostate majority thinks.

 

[japhy]

That is absolutely untrue.

What is untrue, exactly? That many Catholics don’t know about or believe in the Real Presence? That many Catholics wear inappropriate attire to Mass? I think both of those statements are true, at least at all the churches (save one) that I have ever been at.

I didn’t link the two, though. I’m sure there are people who wear tanktops or short skirts to Mass who do believe in the Real Presence, and people in suits who don’t believe in the Real Presence. But that’s besides the point. I was mentioning two different cases of “lex orandi”, one wherein people don’t treat the Eucharist with respect and one wherein people come to Mass in inappropriate clothing.

What about people who wear suits to mass? Some people think thatps horrible. Here’s what they think: People wearing suits bringing the very symbol of the power of the oppression they wield against the poor into mass. How DARE they receive the eucharist in such a state.

I’m very sorry for people that feel oppressed by seeing people in suits at Mass. But I’m dressed for the Lord, not for a hostile corporate takeover to starve the poor minorities in the slums.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What is untrue, exactly?

this is untrue: Find me one catholic who would say this, just one:

Case in point: many Catholics don’t believe (or perhaps were never even taught) that the Eucharist the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and not a symbol thereof. They receive a “piece of bread” in their hands and munch on it like popcorn, and wash it down with a “gulp of wine”.

I’m very sorry for people that feel oppressed by seeing people in suits at Mass. But I’m dressed for the Lord, not for a hostile corporate takeover to starve the poor minorities in the slums.

A lot of people assume you’re dressed in a suit because you think you are superior to others, and to demand the respect of poor class. To them it is scandalous.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

this is untrue: Find me one catholic who would say this, just one:

Case in point: many Catholics don’t believe (or perhaps were never even taught) that the Eucharist the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and not a symbol thereof. They receive a “piece of bread” in their hands and munch on it like popcorn, and wash it down with a “gulp of wine”.

I had to correct a CCD teacher who said that Communion was purely symbolic.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I had to correct a CCD teacher who said that Communion was purely symbolic.

Let me guess… “purely symbolic” is not a direct quote, but rather your paraphrasing of what he or she said. And we’ll never get to see what she really said, which was probably ambiguous at worst.

 

[benedictgal]

Let me guess… “purely symbolic” is not a direct quote, but rather your paraphrasing of what he or she said. And we’ll never get to see what she really said, which was probably ambiguous at worst.

That is the problem with our catechesis today. Our ancestors in the Faith never had any problem believing in the Real Presence.

The bottom line is that the law of prayer is the law of faith. We need to orient ourselves to the Lord. Unfortunately, the “watering down” of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is not helping us.

When we orient ourselves to the Lord in the Mass it is because we recognize that there is "something here greater than Solomon. There is something here greater than then the Temple (Jesus’ own words).

Just as a side topic: even as late as 1982, when I graduated from the 8th grade of my Catholic school, we were taught to always wear our Sunday best for Mass. Neil, if you were invited to meet the Holy Father during a private audience, would you wear sweats and a WYD t-shirt? I think not. We do not dress to presume ourselves. We dress because we are in the presence of the Lord.

Furthermore, Jesus told a parable about the one lone wedding guest who was not dressed for the banquet. What happened to him? The king threw him out “where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Now, I’m not saying that we need to dress in Pravda or Dior to go to Mass. However, our clothes should be neat and presentable because we are in the presence of the Divine Majesty. We need to orient ourselves towards the Lord, to turn towards Him.

 

[benedictgal]

You keep saying that I don’t place importance on the Mass, even though I say that I do. It is the form of the liturgy that is umimportant. Do you think all those Saints and Martyrs used the same form of the liturgy? I’ll grant you that it seems from this conversation that you place more importance on the Mass than I do. It does not follow that the Mass is unimportant to me.

You say that for these Saints “Their love of God and for their fellow man flowed from the Mass.” That may be true, I don’t know. My love of God and my love of others is strengthened by the Mass, as I believe I noted. For me it does not flow from the Mass, it flows from the love that flows to me from Christ. That love is manifest in the Mass, but it is manifest in many other ways as well. And none of this has anything to do with my first post, which was entirely about the form of the liturgy. The liturgy is not the Mass.

At that time, there was a greater reverence for the form of the Mass. It was not the “free for all” it has become now.

By the way, the Mass is liturgy. It is the highest form of liturgical prayer. Other forms of liturgy are Vespers and the Divine Office. However, these have their orientation and flow forth from the Mass.

The love of Christ flows from the Mass. You have missed the point entirely. Perhaps you should try to read on the Mass and understand why it is important that we orient ourselves towards the Lord.

 

[japhy]

this is untrue: Find me one catholic who would say this, just one:

Case in point: many Catholics don’t believe (or perhaps were never even taught) that the Eucharist the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and not a symbol thereof. They receive a “piece of bread” in their hands and munch on it like popcorn, and wash it down with a “gulp of wine”. I saw a boy last Saturday drop his Host, look at it, then pick it up when instructed by the EMHC, then walk away about to put it in his pocket. Someone had to rush down the aisle to stop him.

If you’re asking me to find a Catholic who’ll say the words I put in quotes, I’m not entirely sure who to ask. I do know my wife’s grandmother, at her husband’s repasse [spelling?], said “You know, they say it’s his actual Body and Blood in there.” I was kind of shocked to hear it. We’d just been at a Catholic funeral…

I don’t know what language people who don’t believe in the Real Presence would use. I didn’t put the phrases in quotes because they were quotes from a person; I apologize for the mistake if you thought so. But I have noticed the way people consume the Host like it was a piece of popcorn or a potato chip. And I’m almost sure I’ve seen people nonchalantly wipe their mouth with the back of their hand after receiving from the Chalice.

A lot of people assume you’re dressed in a suit because you think you are superior to others, and to demand the respect of poor class. To them it is scandalous.

Well, some catechesis is in order for those people who assume that. Are these people also offended by clerics in their clerical garb, nuns in their habits, and popes dressed like the Vicar of Christ?

Dressed in a suit at Mass because I think I’m superior to someone? Totally, 100% wrong. I’m dressed nicely at Mass in a show of humility to Our Lord Jesus Christ. The least I could do is take the effort to wear my best clothing; he deserves it! That’s why my hands are washed, too, and my teeth are brushed, and my hair is combed, and I’ve showered, and what-not. Not in a show of superiority, in a gesture of humility.

 

[japhy]

Furthermore, Jesus told a parable about the one lone wedding guest who was not dressed for the banquet. What happened to him? The king threw him out “where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Now, I’m not saying that we need to dress in Pravda or Dior to go to Mass. However, our clothes should be neat and presentable because we are in the presence of the Divine Majesty. We need to orient ourselves towards the Lord, to turn towards Him.

Thanks for bringing up that parable; I think it should serve to orient us in our daily lives as well as eschatologically.

 

[TMC]

At that time, there was a greater reverence for the form of the Mass. It was not the “free for all” it has become now.

By the way, the Mass is liturgy. It is the highest form of liturgical prayer. Other forms of liturgy are Vespers and the Divine Office. However, these have their orientation and flow forth from the Mass.

The love of Christ flows from the Mass. You have missed the point entirely. Perhaps you should try to read on the Mass and understand why it is important that we orient ourselves towards the Lord.

There is a disturbing trend on this board to accuse any who disagree of ignorance. Why do you assume that I have not read on the Mass? Why do you assume that I do not understand the position of the ad orientum only crowd? Why do you say I am not well-grounded in the Church’s teachings?

You say “The love of Christ flows from the Mass.” I said Christ’s love “is manifest in the Mass, but it is manifest in many other ways as well.” Do you suggest that Christ’s love flows only from the Mass? If you do not, I do not understand what you think is wrong with what I said.

I agree that the Mass is liturgy. I said that the liturgy is not the Mass. The Mass is both a sacrificial memorial and a sacred banquet. It is thanksgiving, it is praise, it is sacrifice, and it is the real Presence of Christ among us. But the liturgy – the words and gestures used by the Church at the Mass – are not the sum total of the Mass, nor can they bind, constrain or define the Mass. The Mass can be accomplished with different words and gestures. Any liturgy, and I am sure you are aware that there are several in use now, and have been others through time, is just the way the Mass is celebrated at that particular time and place.

The words have no inherent power. The gestures have no inherent power. The power of the Mass comes from the Holy Spirit, it is not derived from the words and gestures of the man presiding over the Mass. We should not elevate the words and gestures that we prefer over the reality of the Mass. I personally find the words and gestures that a celebrant uses unimportant, although I agree that they should follow whatever the Church teaches as the Church is in charge of such things. But the form of the words is not the Mass. The gestures and rituals are not the Mass. And the Mass is not the only real manifestion of Christ among us.

 

[TMC]

Are you familiar with “lex orandi, lex credendi”? It means the law of prayer is the law of belief: how we pray affects what we believe. The form of the liturgy is important, because the less and less formal and reverent it is, the less we’ll actually believe about God.

And just to comment on lex orandi, lex credendi. This doctrine developed in the very early Church, around 400, when arguments were being made about the content of the Creeds. Lex orandi was the principle that the prayers prayed by Christians even before the Creed and before the Canon can be relied on to have transmitted the faith of the Apostles. In recent years, this has been seized by some to suggest that changing the liturgy is the same as changing the faith, which is an entirely different proposition. (And despite intervening changes in liturgy). Even if that were so, the only way that lex orandi would apply would be if the underlying meaning of the liturgy were to be changed, which of course has nothing to do with orientation.

And even if that meaning of lex orandi were the correct one, it does not follow that less formal and less relevant means less belief in God.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Turning toward the Lord–I’m having a really difficult seeing how the references given here are turning toward the Lord. They rather are turning toward an image–and making the crucifix an idol.
The real presence of the Lord is first of all in the people who are gathered together–the mystical body idea of Paul. And if we do not see our Lord in each other, we will never see him as he truly is in looking at an image. The second major presence of the Lord–is in the liturgy of the word. The crucifix remains an image. The Scriptures & the homily are the lord speaking to us in what can be easily compared to “Love letters”.
The third presence of the Lord is in the liturgy of the Eucharist, where he becomes present to us through the bread and wine offered to God, received by God and transformed into himself, offered back to the community, and received by the community. The Church emphasizes the presence in the Word and the Sacrament in its actions–i.e. that once the mass is started the pulpit and the altar become the centers of focus. Even the tabernacle–even when it is behind the altar–is to be ignored by the celebrant during the liturgy.
Finally the presider is there also to be a living sign of the Lord, and another way that the Lord uses to offer himself to us.
Hence when you say “turning to the Lord” and indicate that the person is turning to a mere image, I hear an expression of a theology that is somehow distorted and that the real presence of the Lord is being missed.

This is a Protestant or humanist position.

CDL