The Modern Liturgical Battle Brewing Among Catholics

[OraLabora]

BUT again - according to an article I read from the 1940s, when they started to experiment with “walk around” altars, the tabernacle being behind the altar was a concern for priests and bishops. They actually believed that it would confuse people regarding the Real Presence if the priest had his back to God the whole mass. The “solution” was to move the tabernacle to another part of the church so the priest would not have his back to the tabernacle.

The location of the tabernacle was not always on the main altar. In churches where there was a choir (choir stalls), and that was used to also celebrate the Divine Office, the preferred location of the tabernacle was at another altar. It was to avoid accidental irreverence on the one hand, and to avoid adding excess complexity to the Offices.

The experimentation with Mass facing the people was first carried out in the 1940s at Sant’ Anselmo in Rome, a Benedictine abbey that is also the seat of the Benedictine Order and the Abbot Primate’s abbey. There, the tabernacle would have already been at a side altar (as it still is today) because the main altar was between the nave and the choir stalls.

Additionally, there have always been Masses facing the people even before the Council, due to the configuration of some churches. For example in cathedrals with a chapter of canons, where the main altar was between the nave and the choir, the Mass could be celebrated with the priest facing the choir, or facing the nave. Both occurred, and rubrics existed for both. So depending on your situation, the priest would be facing you or facing away.

 

[phil19034]

The location of the tabernacle was not always on the main altar. In churches where there was a choir (choir stalls), and that was used to also celebrate the Divine Office, the preferred location of the tabernacle was at another altar. It was to avoid accidental irreverence on the one hand, and to avoid adding excess complexity to the Offices.

Yes - I know. I’m only referring to the ones who had it at main altar, moved it elsewhere, and now have moved it back to the main altar.

The experimentation with Mass facing the people was first carried out in the 1940s at Sant’ Anselmo in Rome, a Benedictine abbey that is also the seat of the Benedictine Order and the Abbot Primate’s abbey. There, the tabernacle would have already been at a side altar (as it still is today) because the main altar was between the nave and the choir stalls.

Additionally, there have always been Masses facing the people even before the Council, due to the configuration of some churches. For example in cathedrals with a chapter of canons, where the main altar was between the nave and the choir, the Mass could be celebrated with the priest facing the choir, or facing the nave. Both occurred, and rubrics existed for both. So depending on your situation, the priest would be facing you or facing away.

Yes, I know. I do NOT have an issue with Mass facing the people. I only have an issue with the priest having his back to the tabernacle. My concern is really for the typical parish, not large Cathedrals & monasteries with multiple altars.

HOWEVER, I do think moving the tabernacle to the main altar and praying the mass Ad Orientem in most regular parishes will help to restore belief in the Real Presence.

But parishes also need a lot more Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament - esp on Sundays. That would help too.

For me, my preferences for Ad Orientem is not about “facing East.” It’s about the priest and deacon not having their back to the King of Kings who is sitting on His Throne - aka the Tabernacle.

 

[Emeraldlady]

After all, back in the 1940s, one of the main reasons why they wanted the priest to face the people was so the people could hear the prayers (not so they could see his face). But after Vatican II started, they allowed microphones. So the original reason to turn the priest around is practually null & void in most places.

Honestly, no, that was not ‘one of the main reasons why they wanted the Priest to face the people’. It was the greater participation of the people in the Mass that prompted the change. And that movement had been around since the mid 19th century among the bishops and clergy.

I wish someone would make a factual movie about the process that lead to the changes in the Mass because I can see that so many people think that it was a ‘novelty’ invented by ‘wayward’ clergy during Vatican II. It simply wasn’t.

After the latest Pew Poll showed that only 1/3 of Catholics believe in the Real Presence I think we have a serious problem here and WE MUST MAKE A CHANGE!

Poll questions can lead to worthless statistics. Perhaps if people were asked if the accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist even if not fully understanding it, a more realistic picture would emerge. The Bishops and clergy on the ground could recognise that the world outside was changing and offering alternative views on the meaning of life that were beginning to impact the congregations well before 1962. I genuinely don’t believe that the changes that are needed are to return to form of worship that only really inspires a niche group. It excites and inspires me to see a worship that more closely resembles the early Church when Christ told the Apostles how to receive Him in worship and they were in turn filled with the grace of joy and hope and humility to evangelise others.

 

[Fuerza]

That’s where I would disagree. I don’t believe that the Mass is where we should direct our ecumenical efforts, but that’s another discussion. Besides, having Catholics from all over the world able to recite or sing one of the best known prayers in Christendom together in the same language is a powerful sign of unity. This is not a hill upon which I would be prepared to die, and I’d happily accept only the changes you proposed. I just approach this issue from a different angle.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

After all, back in the 1940s, one of the main reasons why they wanted the priest to face the people was so the people could hear the prayers (not so they could see his face). But after Vatican II started, they allowed microphones. So the original reason to turn the priest around is practually null & void in most places.

Honestly, no, that was not ‘one of the main reasons why they wanted the Priest to face the people’. It was the greater participation of the people in the Mass that prompted the change. And that movement had been around since the mid 19th century among the bishops and clergy.

I wish someone would make a factual movie about the process that lead to the changes in the Mass because I can see that so many people think that it was a ‘novelty’ invented by ‘wayward’ clergy during Vatican II. It simply wasn’t.

After the latest Pew Poll showed that only 1/3 of Catholics believe in the Real Presence I think we have a serious problem here and WE MUST MAKE A CHANGE!

Poll questions can lead to worthless statistics. Perhaps if people were asked if the accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist even if not fully understanding it, a more realistic picture would emerge. The Bishops and clergy on the ground could recognise that the world outside was changing and offering alternative views on the meaning of life that were beginning to impact the congregations well before 1962. I genuinely don’t believe that the changes that are needed are to return to form of worship that only really inspires a niche group. It excites and inspires me to see a worship that more closely resembles the early Church when Christ told the Apostles how to receive Him in worship and they were in turn filled with the grace of joy and hope and humility to evangelise others.

I’m sorry… but what?

The reason they wanted to priest to face the people was so the people would hear the priest in order to facilitate the greater participation they were seeking. The Church was NOT going to allow microphones back in the 1940s. It’s very difficult to hear the priest when he’s facing away.

I also said the 1940s. I didn’t say invented at Vatican II, because I know it wasn’t. The ideas came longer before Vatican II.

And yes, we need to evangelize. HOWEVER, if we want people to be Catholic instead of Protestant, we need to teach and help them believe in the Real Presence. When I talk to Protestants who have been to Catholic Masses, they will say “there is no way that most Catholic clergy and lay actually believe in the Real Presence. If they did, there would be far more respect in front of the Tabernacle.”

The point is - a vast majority of CHRISTIANS in the United States do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and we are doing nothing to help people believe it.

 

[phil19034]

I don’t want to cause any flame wars here, but one of the ideas behind having Mass in the vernacular in the first place, was to make the Mass more acceptable to Protestants. I am not saying that is a bad thing, far from it.

Maybe so, but I’m not sure that it actually is working in regards to converting Protestants. After Vatican II, the liturgical Protestants allowed female ordination. The vernacular is obviously not the silver bullet some thought it would be. All the protestants I know who have converted to the Catholic faith have done so because of dogma and doctrine.

However, I do think the vernacular has helped in places like some parts Asia & Africa.

 

[ProVobis]

I understand they do Gregorian chant in Africa.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I’m sorry… but what?

The reason they wanted to priest to face the people was so the people would hear the priest in order to facilitate the greater participation they were seeking. The Church was NOT going to allow microphones back in the 1940s. It’s very difficult to hear the priest when he’s facing away.

“Hearing” the Priest is incidental to the need for reform. Read what the VII documents say. Inter Oecumenici

4. The reason for deciding to put these things into practice now is that the liturgy may ever more fully satisfy the conciliar intent on promoting active participation of the faithful. R1

The faithful will more readily respond to the overall reform of the liturgy if this proceeds step by step in stages and if pastors present and explain it to them by means of the needed catechesis.

5. Necessary before all else, however, is the shared conviction that the Constitution on the Liturgy has as its objective not simply to change liturgical forms and texts but rather to bring to life the kind of formation of the faithful and ministry of pastors that will have their summit and source in the liturgy (see SC art. 10). That is the purpose of the changes made up to now and of those yet to come.

I also said the 1940s. I didn’t say invented at Vatican II, because I know it wasn’t. The ideas came longer before Vatican II.

No but there are many people here who obviously think that the reform was ‘invented’ by Vatican II.

 

[OldCAFMember]

HomeschoolDad:

Don’t know why not.

I’d guess it was for time. There were a couple of weeks at daily mass where they were omitting the homilies (and oddly enough a couple of days without the gloria (this was around the 12th/13th/14th week of Pentacost, and the masses didn’t call for the omission, so who knows)). At first I wondered if the new priest didn’t have permission to give homilies, but then everything went back to normal. I still wonder if it was that or time.

Weekday Masses don’t require a homily, and in my experience, half or more do not have one. This may vary by parish and diocese. The Gloria would not need to be said on a weekday, unless it is a feast or solemnity.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Right you are. Up until 1964, people could follow and understand the Latin Mass the way they had done for centuries, only it was much easier to get information on the Mass throughout the last century or so.
But then Vatican II happened. Suddenly people needed Mass in the vernacular. Something must have happened to the culture, that up until 1963 they could follow the language of the Church, then in 1964, they became unable to do so. Go figure. They became like the unchurched Chinese people of the 1600s, who had never had any exposure to Christian culture before. Makes perfect sense!

I have noticed that for many people, it is as though the history of the Church began in 1962. Or possibly more to the point, people look to the early Church, then skip around here and there and find lives of certain saints, their writings, some useful aphorisms, are aware that there was a Protestant Reformation, but aside from that, nothing is “real” unless it happened within the past 50 years or so. Younger people just seem to assume that the Mass has always been in the vernacular, there have always been EMHCs and CITH, and so on. They’ve never known anything else. This is a shorthand over-simplification, perhaps, but you get the idea.

It kind of reminds me of the way that Protestants seem to skip the period from 400 to 1400 (more or less), dismissing it as “the Dark Ages” and not saying a whole lot about it. I much prefer the term “the Age of Faith”.

 

[Peeps]

Right you are. Up until 1964, people could follow and understand the Latin Mass the way they had done for centuries, only it was much easier to get information on the Mass throughout the last century or so.
But then Vatican II happened. Suddenly people needed Mass in the vernacular. Something must have happened to the culture, that up until 1963 they could follow the language of the Church, then in 1964, they became unable to do so. Go figure. They became like the unchurched Chinese people of the 1600s, who had never had any exposure to Christian culture before. Makes perfect sense!

“Something must have happened…”

I think that what happened was that God the Holy Spirit led Pope Saint John XXIII to convene a Second Vatican Council, and God the Holy Spirit led all the other bishops, and eventually Pope Paul VI, to “open the windows of the Church” and make changes that God in His infinite and inscrutable wisdom that is not human wisdom knew were absolutely necessary for Holy Mother Church.

Of course frail humans misinterpreted God’s leading in some of the everyday details, but God, again in His wisdom, led them safely into their “new harbor” and watched over the entire Council and guarded the proceedings so that there would be no serious errors that would prevent the Gospel from being heard and accepted.

I think we all need to trust that God knew what He was doing, and still knows what He is doing, and that He is still on the throne leading His Church, and that the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother, is praying constantly that Her Son will not allow anything to happen through our human ignorance that would endanger our souls.

We are safe, friends.

And many former Protestants like myself and my husband thank God everyday that we were able to understand the first Mass we attended.

BTW, just an hour ago, my husband and I had supper with his parents (elderly!), and my father-in-law, who has been coming to our Catholic Bible studies for years since we converted, told us that he wants to talk to our priest because he needs someone to be a spiritual adviser because his Methodist church and pastor has gone all wrong. So I’m pretty happy right now that the Lord Jesus is still working through Holy Mother Church to bring Protestants “home to Rome,” in spite of the priest facing the people and the contemporary music and the prayers in the vernacular instead of Latin, and all the rest of the “banality,.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

That’s where I would disagree. I don’t believe that the Mass is where we should direct our ecumenical efforts, but that’s another discussion. Besides, having Catholics from all over the world able to recite or sing one of the best known prayers in Christendom together in the same language is a powerful sign of unity. This is not a hill upon which I would be prepared to die, and I’d happily accept only the changes you proposed. I just approach this issue from a different angle.

I see what you are saying and don’t entirely disagree with it, but people normally say the Pater Noster/Lord’s Prayer in their own language, not in Latin. This is a prayer that Christians can recite by heart, and as I said, all Christians use basically the same verbiage (some among English-speakers say “debts” and “transgressions”, and of course Protestants recite the doxology at the end, which is in no way heterodox). People don’t normally recite prayers such as the Sanctus or the Agnus Dei in their daily devotions.

 

[ProVobis]

all the rest of the “banality,.”

“Banal fabrication,” to be exact. At least that’s the way it was translated from the French.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Right you are. Up until 1964, people could follow and understand the Latin Mass the way they had done for centuries, only it was much easier to get information on the Mass throughout the last century or so.
But then Vatican II happened. Suddenly people needed Mass in the vernacular. Something must have happened to the culture, that up until 1963 they could follow the language of the Church, then in 1964, they became unable to do so. Go figure. They became like the unchurched Chinese people of the 1600s, who had never had any exposure to Christian culture before. Makes perfect sense!

If all was well before the Council why do you think Pope St John XXIII in his openning speech at the Council, referred to this type of attitude?..

In the daily exercise of Our pastoral office, it sometimes happens that We hear certain opinions which disturb Us—opinions expressed by people who, though fired with a commendable zeal for religion, are lacking in sufficient prudence and judgment in their evaluation of events. They can see nothing but calamity and disaster in the present state of the world. They say over and over that this modern age of ours, in comparison with past ages, is definitely deteriorating. One would think from their attitude that history, that great teacher of life, had taught them nothing. They seem to imagine that in the days of the earlier councils everything was as it should be so far as doctrine and morality and the Church’s rightful liberty were concerned.

We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand.

I like to refer people to this very first speech to really get a grasp of how and why there was a need for renewal.

St John XXIII Opening Speech Vatican Council II

 

[JSRG]

I’m still a bit confused as to why, if they wanted to make the mass more comprehensible to people (a goal I am thoroughly in agreement with), they didn’t just take the mass as it was and perform it all in the vernacular.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I’m still a bit confused as to why, if they wanted to make the mass more comprehensible to people (a goal I am thoroughly in agreement with), they didn’t just take the mass as it was and perform it all in the vernacular.

I’m not sure if you have time to read the pertinent document now but it covers the aspect that you are confused by and is worth reading in it’s entirity.

CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

 

[JimG]

’m still a bit confused as to why, if they wanted to make the mass more comprehensible to people (a goal I am thoroughly in agreement with), they didn’t just take the mass as it was and perform it all in the vernacular.

That’s sort of what I thought was going to happen. But instead it seemd that one week we were celebrating the traditional Mass and a few weeks later there was a freestanding altar and a young couple with guitars was singing “Bridge Over Troubled Waters” before Mass. But I’m not complaining about the Ordinary Form as it is now. It just took several decades to get it right.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

So, some people saw disasters and doom in current (early 1960s) world events. Why did that necessitate gutting the liturgy, the very church buildings, art and music of the church? I honestly don’t see the connection.

 

[Vico]

I’m still a bit confused as to why, if they wanted to make the mass more comprehensible to people (a goal I am thoroughly in agreement with), they didn’t just take the mass as it was and perform it all in the vernacular.

That was done initially, I know because I was an altar server then, prior to the Mass of Paul VI published in 1970.

Orders for Missal changes March 1965 (vernacular except canon, option to face congregation).
Communion under both kinds 1965.
Second instruction 1967 (English canon, simpler rubrics)
Additional anaphora (eucharistic prayers) 1968

 

[Emeraldlady]

So, some people saw disasters and doom in current (early 1960s) world events. Why did that necessitate gutting the liturgy, the very church buildings, art and music of the church? I honestly don’t see the connection.

The reality is that the ‘tradition’ that had served Catholic faith got competition from new ideologies that had emerged. An example of that was when artificial contraception techniques debuted on the market, the baby boomer Catholics who were raised in the pre VII Church, adopted it in droves. It revealed a deficiency in what we might call Catholic theology of the body. As the post war world evolved, it exposed a sort of shallowness in the catechises that needed to be addressed urgently.

The whole transformation of the Church since then wreaks of the work of the Holy Spirit to preserve Truth.