Traditional Latin Mass, in English?

[Don_Ruggero]

Please understand that “face his back to the people” is truly an INCORRECT way of interpreting it the stance of the presider. “Ad orientem” correctly translated means “to the east” as opposed to “versus populum” meaning “facing the people.”

In fact…it is not “truly an INCORRECT way of interpreting it [sic] the stance of the presider.” After years of teaching of this subject and after more years as a parish priest, it is, actually, exactly how a very significant segment of the population sees it and understands it…and that needs to register with people too blithe to ignore both that reality and segment of the population,

In the “ad orientem” stance the presider faces to the “east” so that he not only faces the rising sun (in reference to the rising Son [of God] at Easter), but also acts as our leader (head of the community on a journey) in praising and praying to God on behalf of the people. If the church building is not built so that when standing at the altar, one is facing east, it is called facing “Liturgical East” or at the head of the congregation, leading them in prayer. Praying the Mass using the ad orientem stance, and having the correct understanding of that stance, is helpful in making God, and not the presider, the focus of the Mass. (as He SHOULD be.)

There is ad orientem and there is ad absidem. The only time I say ad orientem is when I am really – truly – facing East as I offer the Eucharist. When I am facing other directions of the compass while not facing the people, I am facing ad absidem.

“Liturgical East” is a contemporary innovation which should have no meaning, regarding of who popularised it. It is, in no meaningful sense, an eastward orientation, except in fantasy. When Jesus appears in glory, I would not be facing Him if I am in that orientation…

In all my years, I have never had any confusion that people have made me the focus and not God. I find that not only bizarre but it is offensive, as a priest, for someone who is not a priest to say that or even allege it.

Interestingly, it was permitted prior to the current Ordinary Form for the presider to take a “versus populum” stance for the liturgy in some circumstances. It is just that the use of this positioning was not as widely used as it is now. Even currently, The GIRM and Roman Missal for the Ordinary Form of the Mass are written assuming an “ad orientem” stance for the priest, if read closely.

This was true even in the 1970s…I remember it quite well. But what is the point? How is that news? Before the reform, there were churches, above all in Rome, where Mass could be said facing the people. The norm after the reform was Mass facing the people. Period.

There were various occasions, more in Europe than in the new world, where it was architecturally impossible to reconfigure the sanctuary and we offered Mass with altars not facing the people.

I fondly remember moments from the liturgical movement, before Vatican II when Masses were celebrated avant-garde and so while facing the people…they were much better, in my experience.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Roman Missal does not use the term presider, which is a generic, nonspecific term. The liturgical books use priest or celebrant, which are much more accurate terms for the one Who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Presider is a perfectly appropriate liturgical term for use in Englisn. It is, in many ways, the preferred term used by liturgists, actually.

 

[jeannetherese]

In fact…it is not “truly an INCORRECT way of interpreting it [sic] the stance of the presider.” After years of teaching of this subject and after more years as a parish priest, it is, actually, exactly how a very significant segment of the population sees it and understands it…and that needs to register with people too blithe to ignore both that reality and segment of the population.

Greetings,
Wouldn’t a misinterpretation also be an incorrect interpretation? If one’s reality is based upon misinterpreting information, than it might be charitable to share information which might help that segment of the population to reconsider their understanding.

May God bless all who visit this thread.
Amen.

 

[twf]

I encountered it once, in Britain, many many years ago, and it was in visiting an Anglican parish. It was the vetus ordo but all done in English, none in Latin, by the Anglican priest. I was not long ordained and a young Roman professor of liturgy and sacraments and quite struck by it.

As a layman, I felt the Anglican Ordinariate Use high mass I attended in Calgary, AB was almost a hybrid of the TLM and Novus Ordo, though completely in English. I know this isn’t actually the case, but that’s how it “felt”.

 

[Bookcat]

Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is exclusively celebrated in Latin.

But the Anglican Ordinariate has their Mass similar in English.

Try to look for the Anglican Ordinariate or the “Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter”

As a layman, I felt the …Ordinariate Use high mass I attended in Calgary, AB was almost a hybrid of the TLM and Novus Ordo, though completely in English. I know this isn’t actually the case, but that’s how it “felt”.

I understand it is modeled on the Mass in England from the 12th through 16th centuries - though in (Sacred) English.

Plan to attend one of these Sundays once the kids stop getting sick…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Greetings,
Wouldn’t a misinterpretation also be an incorrect interpretation? If one’s reality is based upon misinterpreting information, than it might be charitable to share information which might help that segment of the population to reconsider their understanding.

As one who has presided at Masses in both the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo, I hardly see this as a matter of incorrect interpretation. It is a matter of the perception and of the preference of those who spoke, both of which are perfectly valid.

 

[Big_Feet]

In fact…it is not “truly an INCORRECT way of interpreting it [sic] the stance of the presider.” After years of teaching of this subject and after more years as a parish priest, it is, actually, exactly how a very significant segment of the population sees it and understands it…and that needs to register with people too blithe to ignore both that reality and segment of the population.

I was merely trying to educate… I was not trying to be ‘blithe’ about the subject. I don’t deny that a significant portion of the population may actually see it this way, but do you not concede that this view is an incorrect view and understanding if the stance? OR are you indicating that just because they view it that way, they are in fact correct?

In all my years, I have never had any confusion that people have made me the focus and not God. I find that not only bizarre but it is offensive, as a priest, for someone who is not a priest to say that or even allege it.

While I, personally am not a priest of God, I have heard such men say what I merely repeated.
I am sorry to have offended you, but just because one is not a priest, it does not disqualify him/her from their opinions of experiences. Quite similar to unmarried, celibate priests preaching & teaching on marriage and families.

 

[Mdxxx]

I’ve always wondered if there has ever been a NO mass said in Latin.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’ve always wondered if there has ever been a NO mass said in Latin.

Yes…most assuredly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was merely trying to educate… I was not trying to be ‘blithe’ about the subject. I don’t deny that a significant portion of the population may actually see it this way, but do you not concede that this view is an incorrect view and understanding if the stance? OR are you indicating that just because they view it that way, they are in fact correct?

One can educe theological reasons for a variety of placements of the altar and configurations of altar relative to those participating in various capacities in the synaxis.

“Correctness” is a category of very limited value. I remember, many years ago, while on a visitation, being invited to preside at Eucharist. There was nothing in the chapel that was in any way “incorrect.” As a liturgist, I could understand the thought that laid behind each of the decisions they had made.

But, although each element was correct, the result was so disharmonious and discordant that it was most displeasing aesthetically…and the result was one of the most dis-euphonious liturgies I have ever presided at.

So, assuredly I do not at all concede that the view of the people I have spoken on behalf of is in any way invalid because of its point of origin. In fact, quite the opposite. The fact that they arrive at this conclusion says something to me that is in itself both important and profound, given the nature of sign in sacramental theology.

While I, personally am not a priest of God, I have heard such men say what I merely repeated.

I am sorry to have offended you, but just because one is not a priest, it does not disqualify him/her from their opinions of experiences. Quite similar to unmarried, celibate priests preaching & teaching on marriage and families.

The underlined part is precisely what those would contend who find Mass ad absidem to be, in fact, having the priest turn his back upon them – so, yes, their experience, as you say, is every bit as valid and not to be rejected.

Having studied psychology before becoming a priest, I never had need to suffer from a given neurosis to be able to recognise its manifestation in others or to recommend remediation of it…anymore than a physician need herself have had appendicitis or cancer before treating the condition in those so afflicted.

I would be most sorry for any brother priest who finds himself in a pastoral situation so bizarre that the parishioners come to liturgy to focus on him, as if he were a celebrity or as the object of the liturgical action or, worse, the recipient of the cult offered in the synaxis. I never had that experience…neither as a presider at liturgy nor as a professor. Thankfully.

 

[Magdalena59]

I would be most sorry for any brother priest who finds himself in a pastoral situation so bizarre that the parishioners come to liturgy to focus on him, as if he were a celebrity or as the object of the liturgical action or, worse, the recipient of the cult offered in the synaxis. I never had that experience…neither as a presider at liturgy nor as a professor. Thankfully.

You’re right it is a sorrowful thing to see but it does happen. It happens very frequently. Parishioners very frequently attend a particular parish because of the priest. They say, “he is entertaining” or they are “being fed” or he is “not dry” or he is “charismatic”. I could go on and on.

…because one is not a priest, it does not disqualify him/her from their opinions of experiences.

We love our priests and are very grateful for them and learn much from them but also, along the lines of Big Feet’s comment, there are many who are not priests but do have a good, sound knowledge of the faith, either by education or proper catechesis.

God bless.

 

[jimkhong]

In the “ad orientem” stance the presider faces to the “east” so that he not only faces the rising sun (in reference to the rising Son [of God] at Easter), but also acts as our leader (head of the community on a journey) in praising and praying to God on behalf of the people. If the church building is not built so that when standing at the altar, one is facing east, it is called facing “Liturgical East” or at the head of the congregation, leading them in prayer. Praying the Mass using the ad orientem stance, and having the correct understanding of that stance, is helpful in making God, and not the presider, the focus of the Mass. (as He SHOULD be.)

perhaps I could help improve on your explanation here as it seems to come across at first go as rather pagan, which is probably not what you intended.

Jews in Jesus time pray towards Jerusalem which is in the East (most Jewsish diaspora is in western Mediterranean). So, in the early Church East is seen as the direction of not just the Holy City but the heavenly Jerusalem. East came to symbolise sacred Paradise while the West conversely came to symbolise the evil world. Churches are built with the nave in East-West orientation means that when you walk into the Church from the West, you are leaving the evil world behind and towards the heavenly Jerusalem as you approach the altar. Similarly the offering towards the altar in the direction of the East means we are offering to God who is in the heavenly Jerusalem (East).

Unfortunately many Catholics do not know their own fascinating history. And the fact that most new churches nowadays do not incorporate the East-West orientation means that much of these significance are lost.

 

[amsjj]

I’ve been at an NO that was celebrated in Latin. It was so beautifully and reverently done, I was amazed.

 

[ctb95]

Please understand that “face his back to the people” is truly an INCORRECT way of interpreting it the stance of the presider. “Ad orientem” correctly translated means “to the east” as opposed to “versus populum” meaning “facing the people.”

In the “ad orientem” stance the presider faces to the “east” so that he not only faces the rising sun (in reference to the rising Son [of God] at Easter), but also acts as our leader (head of the community on a journey) in praising and praying to God on behalf of the people. If the church building is not built so that when standing at the altar, one is facing east, it is called facing “Liturgical East” or at the head of the congregation, leading them in prayer. Praying the Mass using the ad orientem stance, and having the correct understanding of that stance, is helpful in making God, and not the presider, the focus of the Mass. (as He SHOULD be.)

Interestingly, it was permitted prior to the current Ordinary Form for the presider to take a “versus populum” stance for the liturgy in some circumstances. It is just that the use of this positioning was not as widely used as it is now. Even currently, The GIRM and Roman Missal for the Ordinary Form of the Mass are written assuming an “ad orientem” stance for the priest, if read closely.

I am aware of what ad orientum means, and I usually don’t describe it as the priest facing his back to the people. However, I was merely responding to what a previous said about masses being said “with his back to the people” and describing what that is called in theological terms (ad orientum).

 

[Big_Feet]

I’ve been at an NO that was celebrated in Latin. It was so beautifully and reverently done, I was amazed.

We do this at our parish currently once a month (1st Sunday of the month) We celebrate it, with the priest facing Ad Orientem, and everything is in Latin, with the exception of the scripture readings in the Liturgy of the Word and the Universal Prayer. We get a fairly good, and growing attendance to this Mass.

We also celebrate the entire Triduum (including Easter Vigil) in the ad orientem posture, though with most in English, with just some of the Mass parts in Latin.

Through different seasons throughout the year, our pastor is trying to educate his flock on utilizing the Latin mass parts, especially the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial acclimation, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei.

When appropriately and reverently done, the Ordinary Form can be extremely beautiful and appropriate for the worship of God in the Mass.

 

[dochawk]

We do this at our parish currently once a month (1st Sunday of the month) We celebrate it, with the priest facing Ad Orientem, and everything is in Latin, with the exception of the scripture readings in the Liturgy of the Word and the Universal Prayer.

In addition to starting more than a decade earlier, this was something the Eastern Catholics in the US handled much better than the RC.

To begin with, Eastern liturgy has always been in the vernacular. “Church Slavonic” was actually a constructed language designed to be mutually intelligible among the various Slavs.

Anyway, ECs in the US generally did it a piece at a time (but didn’t get a Cadillac out of the deal). One prayer or another would be either in English or done in both English and Slavonic, and then another, gradually absorbing nearly the entire liturgy.

(Today, the Pittsburgh Metropolia has gone full bore, designating English as its liturgical language, and probably going too far in stamping out the bits of remaining Slavonic, causing a counter-reaction. Today, we have one word of greek (Theotokas) and no Slavonic).

AMDG

hawk