Priest's Orientation during Mass

[TMC]

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

I am not sure I would agree with Linuse’s ordering, but there in nothing Protestant about it, especially the portion I bolded. And I assume the humanist comment was meant as an insult and not to be taken seriously.

 

[benedictgal]

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, I am truly perplexed by your understanding of Catholic Theology. I am sorry, but you do have a misguided understanding of what the Mass is all about. The gestures and rituals form the Mass. Without gestures and rituals, our liturgy would be akin to a Protestant word service.

Why are you so much against rubrics and form? Why are you so ambivalent to gaining a deeper understanding of the Mass?

I must remind all of us that we have, perhaps, strayed from the original purpose of this thread: the discussion of the Priest’s Orientation during the Mass. Benedict said that this topic would be polemical. I did not think it would come to the point of unleashing Armaggeddon, at least, in this thread.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

TMC, Without gestures and rituals, our liturgy would be akin to a Protestant word service.

Boy, words like this and you accuse TMC and myself of not understanding the Mass?

Also, those who think they’re traditional Catholics, but constantly attack the Mass of Paul VI, are not traditional, but border line heretics.

Traditional Catholics accept what the Magisterium of the Church has taught us.

Like I said earlier, if the Pope changes the position of the priest, fine, its what I’ll accept.

Until that point in time, there’s really no point in arguing about it, if you are really following the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jim

 

[TMC]

TMC, I am truly perplexed by your understanding of Catholic Theology. I am sorry, but you do have a misguided understanding of what the Mass is all about. The gestures and rituals form the Mass. Without gestures and rituals, our liturgy would be akin to a Protestant word service.

Why are you so much against rubrics and form? Why are you so ambivalent to gaining a deeper understanding of the Mass?

I must remind all of us that we have, perhaps, strayed from the original purpose of this thread: the discussion of the Priest’s Orientation during the Mass. Benedict said that this topic would be polemical. I did not think it would come to the point of unleashing Armaggeddon, at least, in this thread.

Why do you insist on girding your points by claiming that I am ignorant or uncaring? I will never believe that “gestures and rituals form the Mass” because it is not true. If I performed the gestures and rituals would that be valid Mass? Are Masses performed by ordained priests using gestures you disapprove of invalid?

You started this thread by bragging that you got a priest to change the form of Mass in his parish by giving him a book. I said I don’t care what way the priest stands. I probably should not have entered into this conversation. I have nothing against “rubrics and form.” Never said I did. I just said they aren’t important. I guess there are a lot of people that think that Catholicism is embodied in those “rubrics and form.” Silly me, I thought what made us Catholic was our love of Christ, and the Faith, Hope, and Love by which we live our lives.

I have been taught my entire life that it is error to think of Catholicism as going to Mass. That Mass is a gift to aid us in being Catholic, not the end and sum of Catholicism. Apparently a lot of people don’t see it that way, but you are not going to convince me otherwise.

So I agree, let’s return to discussing which way the priest should stand. I just won’t have anything to say about that.

 

[japhy]

And just to comment on lex orandi, lex credendi.

…

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. 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.

You think the orientation of the priest has nothing to do with the meaning? The 1962 Missal including directions for the priest about where to look. Not just towards the “East”, but at the Host and Chalice or up towards heaven. Why does my parish’s pastor look at the congregation, rather than at Jesus Christ present on the altar, when he speaks the “Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your Apostles, …” prayer? It’s not being addressed to us, but to the Lord. His speech and his gestures aren’t matching, and it’s confusing. The priest is not narrating the Last Supper to the congregation in the Eucharistic Prayer, he’s praying to God the Father.

And the content of the prayers in the 1970 Missal are vastly different from the content of the prayers in the 1962 Missal. Whole categories of prayers are removed (touching upon sin, hell, purgatory, etc.), and the English translation of the remaining prayers is terrible. Don’t you think these could be a source of lack of belief?

 

[TMC]

You think the orientation of the priest has nothing to do with the meaning?

No, it does not.

The 1962 Missal including directions for the priest about where to look. Not just towards the “East”, but at the Host and Chalice or up towards heaven. Why does my parish’s pastor look at the congregation, rather than at Jesus Christ present on the altar, when he speaks the “Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your Apostles, …” prayer? It’s not being addressed to us, but to the Lord. His speech and his gestures aren’t matching, and it’s confusing. The priest is not narrating the Last Supper to the congregation in the Eucharistic Prayer, he’s praying to God the Father.

And the content of the prayers in the 1970 Missal are vastly different from the content of the prayers in the 1962 Missal. Whole categories of prayers are removed (touching upon sin, hell, purgatory, etc.), and the English translation of the remaining prayers is terrible. Don’t you think these could be a source of lack of belief?

The words used in the liturgy change, yes. Translations differ, sure. Unless you have a missalette from AD 40 or so, you can’t say that whatever form you prefer is the ‘original’ one. And even then ten linguists will give you at least five translations. The liturgy changes, yet the faith remains.

I’ll say it again - the Mass is not the liturgy. It is not defined, bound, or contained by the form of liturgy in use. There are ten or twelve forms of liturgy being used in the Church right now. Are there ten or twelve faiths? Of course not. Are those other Masses not ‘real’?

I accept that the form of liturgy is important to some. What is getting annoying is the suggestion that because I don’t insist on certain words and gestures I am somehow not Catholic.

I say let the priest say the liturgy he thinks is right for his parish. That’s good enough for me. Why must I care about the form of liturgy to be a good Catholic?

 

[japhy]

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.

The power is given by the Holy Spirit to the words and gestures. The priest does have power because of the indelible character given to him through the SACRAMENT of Holy Orders.

 

[benedictgal]

No, it does not.

The words used in the liturgy change, yes. Translations differ, sure. Unless you have a missalette from AD 40 or so, you can’t say that whatever form you prefer is the ‘original’ one. And even then ten linguists will give you at least five translations. The liturgy changes, yet the faith remains.

I’ll say it again - the Mass is not the liturgy. It is not defined, bound, or contained by the form of liturgy in use. There are ten or twelve forms of liturgy being used in the Church right now. Are there ten or twelve faiths? Of course not. Are those other Masses not ‘real’?

I accept that the form of liturgy is important to some. What is getting annoying is the suggestion that because I don’t insist on certain words and gestures I am somehow not Catholic.

I say let the priest say the liturgy he thinks is right for his parish. That’s good enough for me. Why must I care about the form of liturgy to be a good Catholic?

Your remarks do bely some ignorance about the importance of rubrics for the Mass. Perhaps what is more annoying is that by your own words you belittle the importance of norms and rubrics.

Neither you nor Jim have been able to cite bona fide Church documentation regarding the Mass and the rubrics. What you did cite from the Catechism was taken in a vacuum. Remember that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of the catechism and there are parts of it devoted to the Mass.

As I have said before, let’s keep to the focus. Furthermore, if we are going to resort to document warfare to prove our points, let’s be sure and get the sources and the context right. I am not the moderator of the liturgical forum, but, as the originator of the post, I think it’s my responsibility to maintain some degree of focus, lest we completely stray from the thread.

 

[TMC]

Your remarks do bely some ignorance about the importance of rubrics for the Mass. Perhaps what is more annoying is that by your own words you belittle the importance of norms and rubrics.

Neither you nor Jim have been able to cite bona fide Church documentation regarding the Mass and the rubrics. What you did cite from the Catechism was taken in a vacuum. Remember that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of the catechism and there are parts of it devoted to the Mass.

As I have said before, let’s keep to the focus. Furthermore, if we are going to resort to document warfare to prove our points, let’s be sure and get the sources and the context right. I am not the moderator of the liturgical forum, but, as the originator of the post, I think it’s my responsibility to maintain some degree of focus, lest we completely stray from the thread.

How is what I posted from the catechism out of context? The catechism says that the mystery present in the Mass in unchanging, but that the liturgies used to celebrate the mystery are diverse. The catechism says that the form of the liturgy should be conformed to the “genius and cultures of different peoples.” Is the catechism not a “bona fide” Church document?

 

[benedictgal]

How is what I posted from the catechism out of context? The catechism says that the mystery present in the Mass in unchanging, but that the liturgies used to celebrate the mystery are diverse. The catechism says that the form of the liturgy should be conformed to the “genius and cultures of different peoples.” Is the catechism not a “bona fide” Church document?

It is a bona fide document, but it is not meant to be read in a vacuum.

Now, if you want to discuss the dissect whether or not the Mass is a liturgy or if rubrics matter, I have already begun a new thread. Let’s respect what little integrity is left in this one.

 

[TMC]

The power is given by the Holy Spirit to the words and gestures. The priest does have power because of the indelible character given to him through the SACRAMENT of Holy Orders.

I think our differences here may be entirely semantic. The power is the Holy Spirit’s. I would not say that the power is given to the words and gestures, because if the priest makes a mistake on the words and gestures the power is still there. But maybe that’s a distinction without a difference from your point.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

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.

No, purely symbolic is a direct quote.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I am not sure I would agree with Linuse’s ordering, but there in nothing Protestant about it, especially the portion I bolded. And I assume the humanist comment was meant as an insult and not to be taken seriously.

If the priest is supposed to turn his back upon the Lord or upon His return in the East and face the Lord because the Lord is in the people then what is the reason other than what I suggested for such a turning?

CDL

 

[TMC]

If the priest is supposed to turn his back upon the Lord or upon His return in the East and face the Lord because the Lord is in the people then what is the reason other than what I suggested for such a turning?

CDL

I think he gave reasons that are not humanistic. Humanism, as I understand it, is a belief that rejects the divine and emphasizes instead the inherent dignity, wisdom and value of all humans, not because they are a reflection of the Divinity, but just because. To the extent humanists believe in ‘justification’ or ‘salvation’ they believe the means to those ends inherently reside within humans, without the need for divine assistance.

Linuse is suggesting that Christ is present in the people that make up his Church, which is certainly true and there is absolutely nothing humanist about it. We can disagree as to the importance to place upon that Presence, as opposed to the Presence of Christ that is manifest in other aspects of Mass, but it is certainly not humanist.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It should be noted that “ad orientum” today is symbolic East, not literally East, as some have been suggesting here. In the early Church, it was literally East, but became symbolic(not compass East) over the centuries, as it was not always possible to build a Church facing East.

The Church I grew up in, which was built over 100 years ago, faces North, and the altar was in the center of the people. So, the priest faced 1/4 of the people, but had his back to the other 1/4. The other 1/2 were on the side. When the Mass of Paul VI came into being, nothing changed.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually I have my fractions wrong.

The church is the same of a cross, with the altar at the apex of the cross.

So, the priest faces 3/4 of the people, toward the bottom of the cross, with his back to 1/4, which would be the top of cross. Then there is 1/4 on the left and 1/4 on the right, just like a crucifix.

Oh, and the parish I belong to now, faces south.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually I have my fractions wrong.

The church is the same as a cross, with the altar at the apex(I think thats the term) of the cross.

So, the priest faces 3/4 of the people, toward the bottom of the cross, with his back to 1/4, which would be the top of cross. Then there is 1/4 on the left and 1/4 on the right, just like a crucifix.

Oh, and the parish I belong to now, faces south.

Jim

 

[GregoryPalamas]

It should be noted that “ad orientum” today is symbolic East, not literally East, as some have been suggesting here. In the early Church, it was literally East, but became symbolic(not compass East) over the centuries, as it was not always possible to build a Church facing East.

The Church I grew up in, which was built over 100 years ago, faces North, and the altar was in the center of the people. So, the priest faced 1/4 of the people, but had his back to the other 1/4. The other 1/2 were on the side. When the Mass of Paul VI came into being, nothing changed.

Jim

As far as I know all Byzantine Churches face East though I do understand that many RC Churches do not.

CDL

 

[zagjames]

Because it wasnt always practical. That is about the best you can reason for why not all face west. In the last 50 years though it has been more of a why should it face west not a matter of practicality.

I wish all churches had the alter at the east end. You can make it work, even if that means the enterence is back from the road at the back of the property and there is no door on the part of the church closest to the road.

 

[benedictgal]

Boy, words like this and you accuse TMC and myself of not understanding the Mass?

Also, those who think they’re traditional Catholics, but constantly attack the Mass of Paul VI, are not traditional, but border line heretics.

Traditional Catholics accept what the Magisterium of the Church has taught us.

Like I said earlier, if the Pope changes the position of the priest, fine, its what I’ll accept.

Until that point in time, there’s really no point in arguing about it, if you are really following the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jim

Yes, Traditional Catholics accept the Magesterium. However, you and TMC maintain that the Mass is not a liturgy and that it should be a free for all with little attention paid to rubrics. That has never been the teaching of the Church. We are bound by the 10 commandments and Church precepts to go to Mass on Sundays and all Holy Days of Obligation.

Redemptionis Sacramentum empowers us to respectfully request that our priests follow the rubrics of the Mass. The Bishops and Priests are bound to faithfully follow the Roman Missal. The faithful have the right and the obligation to ask their priests and bishops to conform to the liturgical norms and rubrics. What can’t you understand about that?