The Priest facing the people

[SGT_ROCK_33]

I read a great article on this particular issue…

In the New Mass, the altar and the Priest have been positioned so that the Priest now faces the people. It has been argued that this was the ancient way of celebrating Mass.

On the contrary:
In a book by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, entitled The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, including a foreword of support by then, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, states that:

“There never was a celebration facing the people in either the Eastern or Western Church. Instead there was a turning towards the East.”

It is said that since the earliest times, the Priest and the people all faced east toward the rising sun as a symbol of the Resurrection. Churches also placed Crucifixes above the Tabernacle, facing west as our Lord did when He was crucified, thus honoring the Mass as the Continual Sacrafice.

It was not until the sixteenth century that Luther and the reformers rejected the Mass as a sacafice, and turned their altars around to place the emphasis on a celebratory meal, and the celebrant, who they said had no special powers, and merely presided over the assembly.

If this is the case, and the Catholic Church continued to celebrate the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass with the Priest and people facing east, why was it changed to reflect the Protestant form of worship?

Looking for some (name removed by moderator)ut…

God Bless

 

[jmb717]

Love your question, but I can’t answer it. I’m thinking that it was part of the Vatican II, “bringing the Mass to the people”, although I haven’t actually read Vatican II to see if facing the people is specifically addressed in it, or if it is just another thing people took too far.

My follow up question to yours would be - now that they are reforming the liturgy, is there a chance that Priest’s can again face the east, at least for the consecration? I think it would be so helpful in reminding people that the Mass is the offering of a sacrifice, and not a show put on to entertain them.

Joan

 

[Revs96]

St. John of Damascus seems to take it for granted that all worship is Ad Orientem in his De Fide Orthodoxa, written in the early centuries of the Church. Worship facing the people was fabricated by protestants to deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It’s basically heresy, but most Catholics today don’t know any better.

 

[Revs96]

Love your question, but I can’t answer it. I’m thinking that it was part of the Vatican II, “bringing the Mass to the people”, although I haven’t actually read Vatican II to see if facing the people is specifically addressed in it, or if it is just another thing people took too far.

My follow up question to yours would be - now that they are reforming the liturgy, is there a chance that Priest’s can again face the east, at least for the consecration? I think it would be so helpful in reminding people that the Mass is the offering of a sacrifice, and not a show put on to entertain them.

Joan

The Vatican II document on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) does not even remotely suggest that facing the people is acceptable. It in fact says that Mass is a sacrifice, contrary to what is usually suggested in the Ordinary Form. If you read what V2 actually said (here) you get a very different picture than what was done, although some of the reforms are in there (like the use of the vernacular & prayer of the faithful), but we are still supposed to be using Latin and facing the east. In the OF, the priest may face either direction, there is no mandate either way, and the rubrics of the 2002 Missal even assume that the priest faces east (although he rarely does) and tells him to turn around at certain times to greet the people at the beginning, say the “Orate fratres” and “Ecce Angus Dei”. Maybe a few more…

We are sensitive creatures (meaning we rely on our senses) so we need many sense perceptible signs to point us toward God like what we find in the EF but seldom if ever in the OF: Ad Orientem, incense, Altar rail, Latin, Sacred Silence, and on and on…

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Love your question, but I can’t answer it. I’m thinking that it was part of the Vatican II, “bringing the Mass to the people”, although I haven’t actually read Vatican II to see if facing the people is specifically addressed in it, or if it is just another thing people took too far.

My follow up question to yours would be - now that they are reforming the liturgy, is there a chance that Priest’s can again face the east, at least for the consecration? I think it would be so helpful in reminding people that the Mass is the offering of a sacrifice, and not a show put on to entertain them.

Joan

I would say that given the nature of the Curia today, no one would be willing to stand up and actually enforce the changes, even if it were to change. I completely agree with your last statement, very well put.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

The Vatican II document on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) does not even remotely suggest that facing the people is acceptable. It in fact says that Mass is a sacrifice, contrary to what is usually suggested in the Ordinary Form. If you read what V2 actually said (here) you get a very different picture than what was done, although some of the reforms are in there (like the use of the vernacular & prayer of the faithful), but we are still supposed to be using Latin and facing the east. In the OF, the priest may face either direction, there is no mandate either way, and the rubrics of the 2002 Missal even assume that the priest faces east (although he rarely does) and tells him to turn around at certain times to greet the people at the beginning, say the “Orate fratres” and “Ecce Angus Dei”. Maybe a few more…

We are sensitive creatures (meaning we rely on our senses) so we need many sense perceptible signs to point us toward God like what we find in the EF but seldom if ever in the OF: Ad Orientem, incense, Altar rail, Latin, Sacred Silence, and on and on…

Hit the nail right on the head with this one…

I find it interesting in your statements about the 2002 Missal. I haven’t been to a Novus Ordo mass in over 13 years and I was unaware that the rubrics actually call for turning around. Very interesting…to say the least.

Since Vatican II doesn’t even address this issue, and it seems as though the documents on the Liturgy doesn’t even address this question, then what happened? Aside from the fact that I’ve read numerous articles about the Protestants engaged in helping formulate the new mass… On whose authority was this altering of the altar approved?

God Bless

 

[Lormar]

If you listen to the tape of Monday’s Catholic Answers show, the first hour they had on Fr. Sebastian Walshe. He spoke about this. He said, if I remember correctly, that along with it nowhere appearing in any of the VII documents that the priest should face the people, it actually never even showed up in the G.I.R.M. until the year 2000.

 

[frtrue]

By what authority did the change from the priest faceing east to facing the people was this done?
I am a priest in the Traditional Anglican Church and I’ve never been in any of our parishes where the priest faced the people.

 

[Lormar]

By what authority did the change from the priest faceing east to facing the people was this done?
I am a priest in the Traditional Anglican Church and I’ve never been in any of our parishes where the priest faced the people.

You sure did come to the right place for an answer to that. I hope you brought your buckler and shield with you, as it may get nasty.

I’ll let my esteemed brethren take over now…

 

[Bluegoat]

There was some thought, probably mistaken or overstated, that in the Early Church this was how it was done. This idea was part of the movement that contributed to the new liturgies developed in the Catholic and Protestant liturgical churches in the 60’s and 70’s.

Time has shown that they were really jumping the gun in the conclusions they made, but I think people were very excited and hopeful that recovery of early practices would give renewal to the Church, reunite Christians, and combat skepticism about the Bible and Tradition.

 

[whatischarity]

St. John of Damascus seems to take it for granted that all worship is Ad Orientem in his De Fide Orthodoxa, written in the early centuries of the Church. Worship facing the people was fabricated by protestants to deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It’s basically heresy, but most Catholics today don’t know any better.

I would agree with you that it is heresy to deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass. So if the intention of facing the people is to deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass then facing the people promotes heresy. Yet, it is the intention that is heretical and not the action.

Similarly, one who believes cremation is ok is not thereby a heretic. However if one promotes cremation as a means of displaying your belief that there is no resurrectioin then the act is made evil by the heretical intention. This is akin to the Old Testament code whereby doing certain acts was required. For instance, circumcision and forbidden foods. Jesus changes this law of God because of His new precept that it is the intention that is important and not the action per se.

As far as the priest facing the people at Mass, I hope the intention of the Church was to increase the parishioners ability to participate in the Mass which would also be the reason for having the Mass in the vernacular and allowing the people to recite parts of the Mass out loud. I admit I may be wrong about this being the intention.

What about a person who believes the intention of the Roman Catholic Church to have the priest face the people is in order to deny the Mass is a sacrifice? Personally, I would warn against such a belief since it attributes a heretical intention to the ordinary form of worship in the church Jesus founded and protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[whatischarity]

By what authority did the change from the priest faceing east to facing the people was this done?
I am a priest in the Traditional Anglican Church and I’ve never been in any of our parishes where the priest faced the people.

I am pretty sure the Roman Catholic Church claims that Jesus Christ gave to Peter and his successors the power to make certain determinations and that these determinations would be guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve the orthodoxy of His Church so that it could serve as the vehicle of salvation for mankind. For this reason, the Roman Catholic Church has frequently throughout its history made proclamations on matters of faith and morals in addition to rules on liturgy and such. For instance, the Church has determined how many hours a person must fast prior to receiving Holy Communion but it has changed the actual number of hours several times. I reckon someone more knowledgeable than me can tell you the phrase used to refer to these types of rubrical changes.

(Some may argue that these matters are not protected by the Holy Spirit since they do not directly pertain to matters of faith and morals. That detail is beyond by depth of knowledge. A Roman Catholic priest would be a good resource to ask. I would think that the more difficult thing to accept is that the Church can make pronouncements on matters of faith and morals than to accept the Church can chage its own ecclesiastical law. Maybe it is akin to when Jesus forgave the sins of the sick man and the pharisees mumbled at that and then Jesus told the sick man to arise and walk. Obviously it is harder to believe that Jesus could forgive sin but He proved He could do interventions in both the spiritual realm and equally in the physical realm.)

 

[dmorgan]

Sarge, here is another good read on these changes that you might enjoy.

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

As you will note, none of these new “spirit of V-II” changes actually came from the Conference. Simply amazing.

From Sacrosanctum Concilium Pope Paul VI;

Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:

A) General norms

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
4. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.

1. Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony.
2. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.

---

 

[Victorious]

Love your question, but I can’t answer it. I’m thinking that it was part of the Vatican II, “bringing the Mass to the people”, although I haven’t actually read Vatican II to see if facing the people is specifically addressed in it, or if it is just another thing people took too far.

Nope: there is nothing in the documents of Vatican II that says the priest should face the people.

There was some thought, probably mistaken or overstated, that in the Early Church this was how it was done. This idea was part of the movement that contributed to the new liturgies developed in the Catholic and Protestant liturgical churches in the 60’s and 70’s.

Time has shown that they were really jumping the gun in the conclusions they made, but I think people were very excited and hopeful that recovery of early practices would give renewal to the Church, reunite Christians, and combat skepticism about the Bible and Tradition.

I have to say that even if it is true that the priest faced the people at Mass in early times, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. If that was the norm at one time – IF – it was obviously abandoned; and there would have been a good reason for doing so.

And now that I have experienced the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, I have seen for myself that there is a world of difference between Mass with the priest facing God and Mass with the priest facing the congregation. Having the priest face God is one of the single biggest indications that the Mass is about God and not about me. It makes obvious the priest’s role as intercessor, and his character as specially consecrated and set apart. But when the priest faces the people, the focus is on people; God is secondary.

…the Roman Catholic Church has frequently throughout its history made proclamations on matters of faith and morals in addition to rules on liturgy and such. For instance, the Church has determined how many hours a person must fast prior to receiving Holy Communion but it has changed the actual number of hours several times.

Well, the length of the Communion fast is not a matter of faith and morals, which would be unchanging; it is a matter of discipline. As far as the liturgy goes, that is not – or should not be – subject to whimsical revision. It is part of our precious Catholic heritage and needs to be preserved (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium).

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Sarge, here is another good read on these changes that you might enjoy.

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

Thanks for the link…much appreciated.

I still can’t understand why this change was implemented and the reasons for doing so…

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

And now that I have experienced the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, I have seen for myself that there is a world of difference between Mass with the priest facing God and Mass with the priest facing the congregation. Having the priest face God is one of the single biggest indications that the Mass is about God and not about me. It makes obvious the priest’s role as intercessor, and his character as specially consecrated and set apart. But when the priest faces the people, the focus is on people; God is secondary.

Well said…

It makes me happy to see so many people experiencing the beauties and reverence of the Latin Mass. I thank God every day for being able to have a Mass that is close by and accessible.

God Bless

 

[Bluegoat]

d the people at Mass in early times, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. If that was the norm at one time – IF – it was obviously abandoned; and there would have been a good reason for doing so.

And now that I have experienced the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, I have seen for myself that there is a world of difference between Mass with the priest facing God and Mass with the priest facing the congregation. Having the priest face God is one of the single biggest indications that the Mass is about God and not about me. It makes obvious the priest’s role as intercessor, and his character as specially consecrated and set apart. But when the priest faces the people, the focus is on people; God is secondary.

Well, I tend to think that it is part of a package of things that contribute a certain orientation God-ward. Alone it might not be such a big deal. There were some though for whom the change to the focus on the congregation was the point.

But I think it is important to understand why people were so focused on thee recovery of very early Christian practices. It is taken as a bit of a given that it was in the 60’s and later on that people began to leave and doubt the Church, but really, it started much before that, with the Enlightenment, and it increased throughout the 20th century. Higher Biblical criticism when it began to filter down to the regular people in some form was devastating, and it had already been devastating to many academics and clergy. Looking at the Bible from a kind of philological standpoint, the same way other old documents were analyzed, really shook people’s faith. Many could no longer think of it or understand it as a document that was in some way the inerrant word of God, a sure foundation.

When some scolars began looking at and making conclusions about early church practices, many thought they had found the answer. If only we could figure out how those first Christians, those closest in time and space to Christ, worshipped and thought, we would have that foundation. And what is more, it seemed that many Christian groups might be able to agree on this, brinbging in the possibility of re-unification.

Together the ideas of recovering an authentic and sure Christian package, turning around the damage the Enlightenment did to the Church, and bringing together different Christian groups, was too much for people to resist. They quickly began to try to incorporate these new “discoveries” into liturgy. They also seemed to fit into the schemes of some who wanted to see reforms in the Church (which really should have been a warning that the information was being interpreted through modern eyes.)

We know now, as some suspected all along, that there are real problems with the conclusions that these people came to. We also know that the practices of the early church cannot provide the firm foundation people were looking for in any case - those documents are just as susceptible to higher criticism as the Bible.

But perhaps by understanding what people were looking for it will be possible to see a way forward. While I think the older liturgies were more substantial in many ways, a simple return to them really does not address the larger problem that the proponents of the changes were trying to solve.

 

[Victorious]

We also know that the practices of the early church cannot provide the firm foundation people were looking for in any case - those documents are just as susceptible to higher criticism as the Bible.

True. And this antiquarianism fails to take into account that the Church’s understanding of the truths of faith has deepened and developed down the centuries; so to revert to practices that predate this deepening and development is to lose out on that deeper understanding.

(That’s even assuming those really ARE ancient practices we’re reverting to.)

 

[At_Trent]

I read a great article on this particular issue…

In the New Mass, the altar and the Priest have been positioned so that the Priest now faces the people. It has been argued that this was the ancient way of celebrating Mass.

On the contrary:
In a book by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, entitled The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, including a foreword of support by then, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, states that:

“There never was a celebration facing the people in either the Eastern or Western Church. Instead there was a turning towards the East.”

It is said that since the earliest times, the Priest and the people all faced east toward the rising sun as a symbol of the Resurrection. Churches also placed Crucifixes above the Tabernacle, facing west as our Lord did when He was crucified, thus honoring the Mass as the Continual Sacrafice.

It was not until the sixteenth century that Luther and the reformers rejected the Mass as a sacafice, and turned their altars around to place the emphasis on a celebratory meal, and the celebrant, who they said had no special powers, and merely presided over the assembly.

If this is the case, and the Catholic Church continued to celebrate the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass with the Priest and people facing east, why was it changed to reflect the Protestant form of worship?

Looking for some (name removed by moderator)ut…

God Bless

One word answer. Appeasement.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

One word answer. Appeasement.

The word revolution comes to mind as well…

God Bless