The pictures tell the story

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uxor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually there were no strict rules about which way the priest had to face when he said Mass. It’s not doctrinal after all.

However, and I don’t see directions on the pictures, I think they needed special permission before they built the Church so that the congregation would not be facing East.

Thanks for the pictures. Interesting indeed.
 
Interesting website Uxor. They link to some good articles. I tried to find an “About Us” link there but couldn’t. What is the Alcazar Connection?
 
Uxor said:
Have you seen the video of collages of monastic life over at the new liturgical movement site? Beautiful. I don’t know how to post it or I would.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen them yet. Been on vacation and haven’t had time to check anyone’s blogs. Too much catching up of my own to do. 😉
 
BobP123 said:
However, and I don’t see directions on the pictures, I think they needed special permission before they built the Church so that the congregation would not be facing East.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting, because the chuch I grew up in has the congregation facing WEST, and it was built by Vincentian priests about 1850!
 
BobP123 said:
Actually there were no strict rules about which way the priest had to face when he said Mass. It’s not doctrinal after all.

However, and I don’t see directions on the pictures, I think they needed special permission before they built the Church so that the congregation would not be facing East.

Thanks for the pictures. Interesting indeed.
Click to expand...
There are many churches in Chicago that were built in the late 19th and early 20th century where the congregation faces directions other than east.
 
I have heard of this. There was a semi “renewal” at the time these photos were taken. It is the TLM facing the people indeed. It was considered a liturgical abuse back in those days from what I was told from those who knew of them. It also was uncommon for it to happen so don’t let these people fool you, as if it was something allowed by the Church…most likely it was “tolerated” but remember the Pope back then coming down on those who wanted to restore the table and remove Latin and also remove black from the liturgical colors.

Ken
 
kleary said:
I have heard of this. There was a semi “renewal” at the time these photos were taken. It is the TLM facing the people indeed. It was considered a liturgical abuse back in those days from what I was told from those who knew of them. It also was uncommon for it to happen so don’t let these people fool you, as if it was something allowed by the Church…most likely it was “tolerated” but remember the Pope back then coming down on those who wanted to restore the table and remove Latin and also remove black from the liturgical colors.

Ken
Click to expand...
I don’t have a source, but I seem to recall that there were some legitimate indults given to say the TLM ad populum at the time, although they were extremely rare.
 
kleary said:
I have heard of this. There was a semi “renewal” at the time these photos were taken. It is the TLM facing the people indeed. It was considered a liturgical abuse back in those days from what I was told from those who knew of them.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to sound pompous, but not at all. Cardinal Ottaviani himself celebrated it versus populum at Lugano. Ellard’s The Mass of the future has many pcitures. In his Assisi address Pius XII did not speak out against versus populum: in fact, he speaks about how the placement on the tabernacle on the altar with versus populum will be decided by experts.
 
kleary said:
I have heard of this. There was a semi “renewal” at the time these photos were taken. It is the TLM facing the people indeed. It was considered a liturgical abuse back in those days from what I was told from those who knew of them.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to sound pompous, but not at all. Cardinal Ottaviani himself celebrated it versus populum at Lugano. Ellard’s The Mass of the future has many pictures- it did not need an indult and was a position at various Eucharistic Congresses through and after the 1920’s. As you would have noticed the first picture posted by Uxor is following the ‘liturgically correct’ arrangement of some churches of Rome regarding the schola, bishop,etc.

In his Assisi address Pius XII did not speak out against versus populum: in fact, he speaks about how the placement on the tabernacle on the altar with versus populum will be decided by experts. The solutions were like this:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9308/ellard3vj6.jpg
 
Wow, a Tridentine era Novus Ordo parish?:confused:

http://alcazar.net/early_NOM3.jpg

Since this Mass was celebrated 15 years prior to the Paul VI Missal, and even eight years before the 62 Missal, does this mean the words used in the Mass are more at issue amongst the SSPX and Sede’s than the direction the priest faces?
 
AJV said:
I don’t mean to sound pompous, but not at all. Cardinal Ottaviani himself celebrated it versus populum at Lugano. Ellard’s The Mass of the future has many pictures- it did not need an indult and was a position at various Eucharistic Congresses through and after the 1920’s. As you would have noticed the first picture posted by Uxor is following the ‘liturgically correct’ arrangement of some churches of Rome regarding the schola, bishop,etc.

In his Assisi address Pius XII did not speak out against versus populum: in fact, he speaks about how the placement on the tabernacle on the altar with versus populum will be decided by experts. The solutions were like this:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9308/ellard3vj6.jpg
Click to expand...
You are an incredible wealth of information, my friend. That just needed to be said.👍
 
Solemn Papal Masses in the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome have been celebrated versus Populum since the building of the new Basilica, and I wouldnt hesitate to guess during the latter part of the history of the old Basilica.

Note however that this was NOT for the purpose of facing the congregation. Rather, it happens that old St. Peter’s, like the other major Basilicas in Rome, was built with the Apse oriented West. The new Basilica followed the layout of the old, and so was oriented West as well. Prior to Vatican II- and especialy prior to the 20th century- most churches were built oriented to the East, (symbolizing our expectations for the Second Coming of Christ). Even in churches that were not oriented East, it was still common for the Altar to be built facing away from the congregation, and this would be called Liturgical East. However in Rome there was much stricter adherance to traditions- so in the great Basilica, Masses from the High Altar of the Confession (which only the Pope himself could celebrate Mass upon) would have faced the main nave. Although the point is moot considering the Altar is faced by seating on all sides.

But some of these pictures show Mass being deliberately clelebrated facing the people. As we can see, radical, untraditional ideas had already seeped into the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council.
 
Yes our oldest Church is dated 1837 has everything facing East as I thought it meant Jerusalem. The priest faced the tabernacle EAst on the altar away from the congregation. Dessert
 
Caesar said:
Solemn Papal Masses in the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome have been celebrated versus Populum since the building of the new Basilica, and I wouldnt hesitate to guess during the latter part of the history of the old Basilica.

Note however that this was NOT for the purpose of facing the congregation. Rather, it happens that old St. Peter’s, like the other major Basilicas in Rome, was built with the Apse oriented West. The new Basilica followed the layout of the old, and so was oriented West as well. Prior to Vatican II- and especialy prior to the 20th century- most churches were built oriented to the East, (symbolizing our expectations for the Second Coming of Christ). Even in churches that were not oriented East, it was still common for the Altar to be built facing away from the congregation, and this would be called Liturgical East. However in Rome there was much stricter adherance to traditions- so in the great Basilica, Masses from the High Altar of the Confession (which only the Pope himself could celebrate Mass upon) would have faced the main nave. Although the point is moot considering the Altar is faced by seating on all sides.
Click to expand...
Except that it was assumed for thenceforth that the Pope always faced the people and whenever he went out of Rome (rarely) on most occasions the main altar was covered and he celebrated on a secondary one, versus populum. See for example, Guardi’s painting. The phrase “ad populum” was specifically coined by the Papal MC in 1502.Not to mention that the Ritus Servandus (V, 3 and XII, 2) says it: and that was why they could do it licitly, and why Pius XII condoned it.
 
AJV said:
Except that it was assumed for thenceforth that the Pope always faced the people and whenever he went out of Rome (rarely) on most occasions the main altar was covered and he celebrated on a secondary one, versus populum. See for example, Guardi’s painting. The phrase “ad populum” was specifically coined by the Papal MC in 1502.Not to mention that the Ritus Servandus (V, 3 and XII, 2) says it: and that was why they could do it licitly, and why Pius XII condoned it.
Click to expand...
And the reason for that was that most “Papal Masses” were not celebrated by the Pope. Rather, it would be celebrated in his presence. The throne (or the faldstool, I forget which) would be placed before the Altar, with another Altar set up before the steps. This is completely dfferant from purposefuly having the Altar facing the congregation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top