Should Mass be offered Ad Orientem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t turn around, reach across pews, dash across the aisle, hug it out…none of that in the OF Mass. I fold my hands, bow slightly and smile, say “Pax Christi.” I don’t shake hands. The only thing touching my palm during Mass is the Body of Christ. Which goes directly from palm to mouth, no fingers. Others can do what they want. It’s all good.
Once the Agnus Dei music starts, I’m eyes front.
Of course, in the Tridentine Mass, none of that is an issue. Either way, I believe I’m supposed to be as focused as possible on the Real Presence, regardless of Mass form.
 
Last edited:
KMG said:
Those who use the Last Supper as evidence for novel/progressive practices should also remember that the 12 were also ordained priests at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
There is not talk here of anything novel, just two options.

It never ceases to surprise me how many people would like to control the liturgy in parishes in which they will never set foot. Why not simply let the priests there decide? Remember, it is not the laity who are assigned the task of implementing the liturgy, but rather it is a task given specifically to the bishop.
 
Last edited:
Yes, everything matters to God, he isn’t careless like some humans are. Facing East would bring more reverence and the mass is through Christ. Through Christ to the Father etc Plus the mass is a mystery.
 
Divine3 said:
Yes, everything matters to God,
Click to expand...
Not everything is pleasing to God, though. From Isaiah:

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
_ what are they to me?” says the Lord._
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
_ of rams and the fat of fattened animals;_
I have no pleasure
_ in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats._
12 When you come to appear before me,
_ who has asked this of you,_
_ this trampling of my courts?_
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
_ Your incense is detestable to me._
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
_ I cannot bear your worthless assemblies._
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
_ I hate with all my being._
They have become a burden to me;
_ I am weary of bearing them._
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
_ I hide my eyes from you;_
even when you offer many prayers,
_ I am not listening._

Your hands are full of blood!

16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
_ Take your evil deeds out of my sight;_
_ stop doing wrong._
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
_ Defend the oppressed.[a]_
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
_ plead the case of the widow._

And my favorite, from Micah:

With what shall I come before the Lord
_ and bow down before the exalted God?_
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
_ with calves a year old?_
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
_ with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?_
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
_ the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?_
8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
_ And what does the Lord require of you?_
To act justly and to love mercy
_ and to walk humbly[a] with your God._
 
I’m just happy to go to Mass. I do not care which way the priest is facing and to me it’s a non-issue.
Seems like the sort of thing priests and theologians like to dither about, more than anything that truly matters to God Almighty.
 
KMG said:
“To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and nature should remain united.” - Pius XII
Click to expand...
Of course that does not mean that the tabernacle has to be on the main altar of a church, for example like at St. Peter’s in Rome, as I pointed out earlier quoting a 1935 text.

It’s important to point this out, as some misinterpret this to mean the tabernacle always has to be on the main altar, visible from the nave. It was never mandatory for that to be the case, even if it was the preferred arrangement for churches that were not conventual, collegial or cathedral.
 
Bottom line is, we like things we are comfortable with. We like things that resonate with our preferences, that reinforce our culture, our way of praying, singing, practicing our faith.

There can be a lot of good in unity of practice, as long as it doesn’t become idolatrous. I think it does become idolatrous when we put practice ahead of people.

I can tell you that in our parish western European Catholic culture is dying rapidly.
Hispanic Catholic culture is thriving. The Hispanic tone of worship is different. It’s more spontaneous, more vibrant and charismatic. Very devout. Mass doesn’t start at 1:30 sharp like it says in the bulletin, it starts whenever people stop talking to one another, which might be 145 or 2pm. The challenge is to set aside my bias for my own expression of the faith, and open the mind and heart to other people.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
There can be a lot of good in unity of practice, as long as it doesn’t become idolatrous.
Click to expand...
What I know Vatican II was trying to achieve is unity without uniformity. That is, all united around one Church, one God in three persons, one Holy Father, and one set of doctrines, but allowing for cultural differences to exist in our worship. I think Vatican II recognized that the Church was going to expand well beyond the boundaries of Wester Europe, to places where Western European cultural influences have no historical basis other that (in many places) cultural imperialism.
 
Great article – looking forward to reading it fully. Thanks for the research and having an educated look at the reality of what is being said by those who are very knowledgeable regarding the sacredness of the liturgy.
 
Good point! There is nothing wrong in asking a question that has already been asked. Christians might want to look at Jesus and what he said to a few pharisees along the way. He needed to repeat himself a few times.
 
Divine3 said:
Good point! There is nothing wrong in asking a question that has already been asked. Christians might want to look at Jesus and what he said to a few pharisees along the way. He needed to repeat himself a few times.
Click to expand...
There was no internet, or forum when Jesus spoke, so of course he had to repeat himself.

Sometimes on this forum, people ask something that literally has a dozen threads already. If the person asking had looked at them first, there is a high probability their question was already answered. If anything, they could get an immediate answer instead of having to wait, which was why it was suggested to begin with, at least when I said it.
 
o yes very good point. when you google these questions many times they take you to this forum. Sometimes people just like to have a discussion with a thread that is not closed.
 
Irishmom2 said:
Sometimes on this forum, people ask something that literally has a dozen threads already. If the person asking had looked at them first, there is a high probability their question was already answered.
Click to expand...
Alas, instead of finding answers, they’re more likely to find arguments…
 
Well, yes. And a new thread on the same topic will just be a new thread with the same arguments repeated. 😳
 
Absolutely! I wish that every priest offered mass Ad Orientem. I have noticed that when I attend mass Versus Populum I implicitly have a desire to be “closer to the action” in order to see everything that is going on, which is how it shouldn’t be. When I attend mass AO, I find that I am completely focused on the sacred mysteries and the majesty of almighty God, and am free to prayerfully participate in the liturgy without the distraction of concerning myself with the priest as a man, rather as the priest in persona Christi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top