The Priest facing the people

[Bluegoat]

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Since it was the Protestants that broke away from the Church and essentially made their own man made religion.

I don’t understand this attitude in the modern Church to empathize with all the other religions. It seems as though modern ecumenism has taken things a little too far…that’s just my opinion of course…

God Bless

I’m not sure I follow you. I understood you to be saying that in the changes to the liturgy the Catholic Church made in the 20th century, they were following Protestant liturgical innovations or styles. Whereas I think you could make a convincing argument that the Protestants were following the Catholic lead in the changes they made to their liturgies in the 20th century - the Catholics made certain changes and the Protestants followed with their own, similar changes. Now, I think the two really happened at once to a large degree and influenced each other - there is only a fairly small community of liturgical scholars out there including all liturgical churches. But I don’t think it is the case at all that the Catholics were trying to make their liturgy Protestant. Everyone seems to have thought they were becoming more Catholic, or catholic.

 

[Bluegoat]

Of course over the centuries the Church has added pews and kneelers which in many cases are very beneficial to people who have problems kneeling on the hard floor. I have been in Orthodox churches where there are pews also. I guess it depends on which Orthodox. I will credit the protestants for starting the custom of having pews, I find nothing wrong with them. It surely helps when you have little ones in Mass. Since I have never attended an Orthodox church without pews I wonder if there children just stand for two hours or if they are babies if the parents must hold them. When I was an Episcopalian we had an Orthodox woman who would come into the church during Mass with her 9 or 10 year old son, who would proceed to climb up on a small side altar with a large crucifix above it and kiss it. It was very disrupting. She came often.

Bernadette

Many Orthodox churches in America have pews, though not all. It is less common elsewhere (and in Europe it is less common for Catholic Churches to have them too.)

It is my understanding from my Orthodox friend that it is quite common for children to walk around in the church, look at the statues, and so on during the service. They are expected to be quiet, but not necessarily stay still, though that varies by parish to some degree. In her large parish it takes two hours just to distribute communion, not to mention the rest of the service, so it is easy to see why expecting children to stay still the whole time is not realistic. (Or adults I suppose, we always have a small parade of the weak-bladdered at my church about 2/3ds of the way through the service, and it is only an hour and a half.)

 

[Yggdrasil]

My apologies for responding to a post five pages later, but I just discovered the thread.

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.

Actually, as far as free-standing altars and versus populum are concerned, the Second Vatican Council implicitly endorsed such a scheme. One of the primary effects of Vatican II’s document Sacrosanctum Concilium was to convene the group that would establish the new liturgical norms (and later formulate the Novus Ordo). And that group produced a document of recommendations, Inter Oecumenici, which advocated for versus populum: “the main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people” (IE, §91). Inter Oecumenici was submitted to the Council before it closed, and it received very little consternation from any of the bishops present. If versus populum wasn’t what the Council (or the Holy Spirit) intended, one wonders why it didn’t cause such a fuss among the assembly. (My personal guess is that there was no Holy Spirit, only a bunch of mortal men trying to devise a new religion with contemporary appeal, under the guise of Roman Catholicism. Probably most here would disagree with that assessment, but anyway.) The priest facing the people was intended at Vatican II.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, do you mean in airport chapels or that sort of thing? I thought in general we were talking abut parish churches here, so obviously no Protestants or Muslims will be using those.

Where is it written parish churches or cathedrals or whatever CAN’T have Protestants or Muslims ever worship there?

 

[Bluegoat]

Where is it written parish churches or cathedrals or whatever CAN’T have Protestants or Muslims ever worship there?

I seem to recall a discussion about a Jewish group usnig a Catholic Church for a particular occasion, and it came out that the rules didn’t really say it was wrong under all circumstances. But I don’t think they were supposed to use the altar.

 

[MarkThompson]

Where is it written parish churches or cathedrals or whatever CAN’T have Protestants or Muslims ever worship there?

Well, if Protestants and Muslims can worship in a Catholic Church, then they can worship in “EF parishes” too, and if they can use the altar, then they can use orientem-facing traditional altars too. It sounded above like you were trying to claim that “Novus Ordo” altars would somehow be expected to be inferior. I’m sure that at non-sectarian hospitals and nursing homes the altars (or altar-tables) may well be inferior, in that they’re unable to be dedicated exclusively to Catholic worship. (That, of course, has nothing to do with the form of the rite which is employed.) However, in parishes and cathedrals this is not the case, and I’m sure you won’t find any where they’ve left out relics in hopes that Protestants or Muslims will one day use the altar. Sorry if that’s not what you were trying to imply, but it sounded like it.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Well, might it have been in a separate chapel? That isn’t uncommon in Cathedrals.

Tabernacle was way off to the side, not on main part of Sanctuary.
Other than the altar, the Blessed Mary was centered.

 

[WatchingMedia]

While I couldn’t agree with you more, I still don’t understand why the Catholic Hierarchy would want to mimick the Protestants by replacing the altar with a central table and have the Priest face the people…

I would say that our Lord is not too happy with the current situation in His Church today. Why does the Roman Curia continue to sit back and watch the Priests and Bishops abuse their power? It is absolutely beyond logic…

God Bless

I think much is the sin of PRIDE (I know better than the Pope and Magesterium), and the Sin of DISOBEDIENCE (to the Pope and Magesterium).

This is exactly why we are now redoing the Mass, and had to have a Second Edition of the Catechism in the US version.

Pride and Disobedience breed Pride and Disobedience. That is why respect for some religious is not what it should be.
This is very unfortunate for all the good Religious, and there are many but they don’t make the news.
For Christmas, give your favorite Priest or Bishop Saint Faustinas “Diary” Divine Mercy in My Soul. It’s a real eye opener regarding obedience.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well put…

It is sad to see so many Catholics that do not understand their Faith and who cannot discern error from truth. This leads me to believe that the current ecumenism taking place today poses the question “why be Catholic?” I wish more Cathlolics would become more involved in their Faith and not so involved in Parish power-politics. All we can really do is get to Mass and pray that the Holy Spirit will fill the souls of our leaders and guide them out of the chaos.

God Bless

AMEM!

 

[ProVobis]

Well, if Protestants and Muslims can worship in a Catholic Church, then they can worship in “EF parishes” too

You’re right. But they’d probably bring in a portable free-standing table for their worship. That is, if they can tolerate the stations of the cross, candles, shrines, etc.

 

[jmb717]

Actually, as far as free-standing altars and versus populum are concerned, the Second Vatican Council implicitly endorsed such a scheme. One of the primary effects of Vatican II’s document Sacrosanctum Concilium was to convene the group that would establish the new liturgical norms (and later formulate the Novus Ordo). And that group produced a document of recommendations, Inter Oecumenici, which advocated for versus populum: “the main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people” (IE, §91). Inter Oecumenici was submitted to the Council before it closed, and it received very little consternation from any of the bishops present. If versus populum wasn’t what the Council (or the Holy Spirit) intended, one wonders why it didn’t cause such a fuss among the assembly.

Thank you for your reply. I thought there must have been something out there that made priests think it was ok to face the people. But what you’re saying seems to mean that it would also be ok if a priest, on his own, decided to face east during the consecration part of the mass, right?

 

[Califman831]

Where is it written parish churches or cathedrals or whatever CAN’T have Protestants or Muslims ever worship there?

The would be in the real catechism of the catholic church, Vatican I

 

[Victorious]

Where is it written parish churches or cathedrals or whatever CAN’T have Protestants or Muslims ever worship there?

Protestants and Muslims can worship in a Catholic church. They can attend Mass.

 

[PJM]

=SGT ROCK 33;6587338]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

***The Faces Populum [sp?] position made the Mass a stage production. [With many clamoring to play a role for ALL to see.]

One cannot Objectively deny that it has changed Mass from a sacred act focused on God, to a series of communal actions that clearly place us in competition with God. I don’t know if life is a stage; but the Novus Ordo* certainly is.

God get’s less ans we lose!**

 

[patrick457]

***The Faces Populum [sp?] position made the Mass a stage production. [With many clamoring to play a role for ALL to see.]

One cannot Objectively deny that it has changed Mass from a sacred act focused on God, to a series of communal actions that clearly place us in competition with God. I don’t know if life is a stage; but the Novus Ordo*** certainly is.

God get’s less ans we lose!

I’ll come out and say that I’m also not too much a fan of the versus populum. I could tolerate it in areas where ancient custom has it that priest HAD to face the people in order to face East (say, in many churches in Rome), but like, why? how? what?

 

[Victorious]

I’ll come out and say that I’m also not too much a fan of the versus populum. I could tolerate it in areas where ancient custom has it that priest HAD to face the people in order to face East (say, in many churches in Rome), but like, why? how? what?

Where the priest did face the people, did the people also face the priest? or did they also face east?

 

[patrick457]

Where the priest did face the people, did the people also face the priest? or did they also face east?

According to the article The Eschatological Dimension of Church Architecture by Helen Dietz:

Msgr. Klaus Gamber has pointed out that although in these early west-facing Roman basilicas the people stood in the side naves and faced the centrally located altar for the first portion of the service, nevertheless at the approach of the consecration they all turned to face east towards the open church doors, the same direction the priest faced throughout the Eucharistic liturgy.

By the way, I’ve just found that in many Coptic liturgies, the Deacon often proclaims the command to stand and “Look towards the east” during the Anaphora, just before the Sanctus and the Words of Institution!

 

[Lapell]

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

In a booklet on “The Story of the Mass” written by Fr. Pierre Loret, Redemptorist, it appears there were actually four different ways to celebrate Mass in the Catacombs, and I think that among them was at least one way where the priest faces the people when he faces the altar… and also another way was with the priest facing the altar back to the people.

 

[Lapell]

One may argue that when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, He certainly was not uttering the sacred words with the Apostles behind Him, since it was during the seder - the Passover meal…

 

[Lapell]

Well, you need to be careful making claims like these. For example, pews are a Protestant invention adopted by the CC. Old Catholic churches in Europe didn’t have them, just as the Orthodox often don’t. That doesn’t make them wrong, but you are making historical assumptions that are simply incorrect.

Are you sure it’s a Protestant invention? Where and when was it invented, by the way?