Transitioning to Tridentine Rite

[Sirach2]

I do accept what the Church actually teaches, of course.

Good. Then you are in agreement with all of the diocesan bishops, worldwide, who have instructed their clergy to celebrate ‘facing the congregation.’ Excepting, of course, the EF liturgies.

 

[floresco]

Here is an article by Fr. Z dealing with these questions.wdtprs.com/blog/2011/06/quaeritur-a-priest-must-defend-ad-orientem-for-the-novus-ordo/ He summarizes:

That is in reference to the GIRM 299, which is mistranslated in the official English translation. That is why the CDW clarified the grammar of the Latin, above.

Remember, no document requires versus populum worship. The rubrics of the Latin Missale Romanum presupposed ad orientem worship. The Latin edition is the norm above all and it is always valid for use everywhere. There are good motives for changing to ad orientem worship, including the catechetical advantage it brings in teaching about the interior orientation we all need at Mass.

 

[floresco]

Good. Then you are in agreement with all of the diocesan bishops, worldwide, who have instructed their clergy to celebrate ‘facing the congregation.’ Excepting, of course, the EF liturgies.

The OF may be celebrated ad orientem and I have seen this done by priests whom I am sure would not disobey their bishops.

 

[Sirach2]

The OF may be celebrated ad orientem and I have seen this done by priests whom I am sure would not disobey their bishops.

You are echoing my own words earlier, where I stated that BOTH are allowed. You would do the church a great service if you wrote to every Bishop and informed them of Fr. Z’s blog statement. I’m sure they would readily comply and reinvent the wheel, instructing their clergy to celebrate ad orientem.

Do you really believe that Bishops are in charge of their dioceses? Do you believe the clergy are to obey their directives? Do you believe this is going to change in the OF any time soon? Why are we even having this discussion? I already agreed with you that AO is permissible, but remember that it is the Bishop who has the final word. This was the final analysis as stated in the closing paragraph of the Protocol:

These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition.

You may be 100% correct, but 100% wrong to override the governing Bishops’ directives.

 

[floresco]

You may be 100% correct, but 100% wrong to override the governing Bishops’ directives.

I have not suggested that anyone should override a governing bishop’s directives. You made the claim that “while BOTH postures are allowed, the preferred form, as stated, is versus populum.” I am agreeing with you that both postures are allowed but disagreeing that the Church teaches that versus populum is to be preferred. The quotes you cited do not support that.

 

[Sirach2]

I am agreeing with you that both postures are allowed but disagreeing that the Church teaches that versus populum is to be preferred. The quotes you cited do not support that.

Okay, let’s go back a bit further than the Protocol and the Notitiae. I posted the official document given the seal by Pope Paul VI in 1964.

II. MAIN ALTAR
91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.

My own sensibility suggests that this document was the basis for the subsequent wording in 1983 iused in GIRM #299. Note, Floresco, that there is NO latin discrepancy here. The sentence is perfectly clear to all who have eyes to see.

The theology is rather beautiful for either form of posture, but if you read the Constitution on the Liturgy, the Council wished to renew the liturgy using the form of the Eucharistic Supper of the Lord, and that required facing the congregation. Since there were 2600 in attendance, I believe all the bishops understood well this direction the Holy Spirit was leading the Church.

 

[Tridentinum]

Good. Then you are in agreement with all of the diocesan bishops, worldwide, who have instructed their clergy to celebrate ‘facing the congregation.’ Excepting, of course, the EF liturgies.

False. That isn’t a teaching of the Church. It’s novelty that has been introduced since Vatican II.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I’m trying to transition to traditional Catholicism, but not because I feel the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate celebration. I just feel that most American bishops have taken liberties with the Novus Ordo to the point that in many dioceses it doesn’t even resemble the recommendations of Vatican II.

I agree.

For instance, what happened to the priest facing the altar? That wasn’t set aside by Vatican II. Why do people hold up their hands during the Our Father? In the Latin Mass only the priest may use this posture because he alone acts in persona Christi. Silence is also strictly maintained in the Latin Mass; people truly feel as though they are in the presence of God.

Personally I never understood why the priest would need to face the people. When this happens it feels like the priest is separate from the congregation instead of representing the congregation. To me it’s just as confusing as if I saw my commanding officer run into battle backwards while I run forwards; you almost want to yell “you’re looking the wrong way! God (In the tabernacle) is in front of you”! I mean Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament so when I see the priest facing the congregation, I always picture Jesus standing there and the priest with his back turned making his petitions to Christ on behalf of the parish. It looks weird because IMHO it is weird. I always wondered if the priest would celebrate Mass versus populum if Christ was standing there in His visible form and not in His hidden form. If not then why do it now? I wonder if priests ask themselves this question.

As for the lack of silence and the hand gestures, I would say they are the result of a common myth that has been adopted in where people think they have to “do” things in order to say they have participated in Mass. IMHO I believe a majority of people do these things so they can feel like they have participated in Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Note, Floresco, that there is NO latin discrepancy here.

Do you have the Latin to make this claim?

 

[ProVobis]

My own sensibility suggests that this document was the basis for the subsequent wording in 1983 iused in GIRM #299. Note, Floresco, that there is NO latin discrepancy here. The sentence is perfectly clear to all who have eyes to see.

The Latin you allude to is:

1. Praestat ut altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile
   circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit;

One can probably interpret praestare to mean it is better or preferable that the altar be built away from the wall but it would be quite a stretch to mean that it is preferable to face the people, only that a free standing altar would make it, just as incensing around it, more easy to do so. (obviously)

 

[floresco]

My own sensibility suggests that this document was the basis for the subsequent wording in 1983 iused in GIRM #299. Note, Floresco, that there is NO latin discrepancy here. The sentence is perfectly clear to all who have eyes to see.

If you are referring to “The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.” this does not imply that versus populum is preferred, even in the English. It is saying that altars should be constructed so that both options are possible.

If you are referring to "“The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible,” Fr. Z has identified this as being an incorrect translation from the Latin. (I posted the link earlier in the thread.) Do you claim more expertise in the language than his?

The theology is rather beautiful for either form of posture, but if you read the Constitution on the Liturgy, the Council wished to renew the liturgy using the form of the Eucharistic Supper of the Lord, and that required facing the congregation. Since there were 2600 in attendance, I believe all the bishops understood well this direction the Holy Spirit was leading the Church.

I have read this document and do not recall anything of the sort. Could you please quote the passage to which you refer.

 

[Sirach2]

ProVobis,

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the latin. There would never have been the need to adopt the words “celebratio versus populum peragi possit” unless specific clarification was needed to celebrate facing the people. The only requisite would have been to state that the altar be free-standing, so that incensing could be facilitated. You two are stretching for the moon to make your point, and it shows up as being argumentative. There are just too many other places where the posture has been clearly demonstrated as lawful, adviseable, preferred, and theologically correct.

Reminder, this paragraph I posted earlier renders void your desire that bishops will mandate their clergy to adopt the A.O. posture.

[Forty] years have passed since the constitution . “Provisional arrangements” cannot be justified any longer. In the re-organization of the sanctuary, if a provisional character is maintained which is either pedagogically or artistically badly resolved, then an element of distortion results for catechesis and for the very theology of the celebration.

Read my signature …

 

[floresco]

ProVobis,

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the latin. There would never have been the need to adopt the words “celebratio versus populum peragi possit” unless specific clarification was needed to celebrate facing the people. The only requisite would have been to state that the altar be free-standing, so that incensing could be facilitated. You two are stretching for the moon to make your point, and it shows up as being argumentative. There are just too many other places where the posture has been clearly demonstrated as lawful, adviseable, preferred, and theologically correct.

The above is the wording I would expect if both options were permitted (as they are). It says nothing about versus populum being preferable. I have no question about it being lawful, but you really have not been able to construct a good argument for your position.

 

[Sirach2]

…you really have not been able to construct a good argument for your position.

Guess what, Floresco — I don’t have to. The Church has spoken. The liturgy in the OF almost universally, given a few isolated exceptions, is celebrated in this manner because the Bishops have directed the clergy thusly in their jurisdictions, as per their understanding of Church teaching.

You know to whom you may go if you want to complain, for it is falling on my very deaf ears at this point. Bye.

 

[ProVobis]

ProVobis,

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the latin.

Totally? Does that mean it’s not preferable to build a free-standing altar?

There would never have been the need to adopt the words “celebratio versus populum peragi possit” unless specific clarification was needed to celebrate facing the people. The only requisite would have been to state that the altar be free-standing, so that incensing could be facilitated.

Okay, but incensing isn’t specifically addressed here; I used it as an example to show how walking around the altar is on the same level as facing the people for the sake of arguing what’s not indicated as preferred. Incense, I believe, is addressed elsewhere.

NB. It is possible to construct an altar away from the wall and NOT be able to walk around it easily. There has to be sufficient space, IOW. That’s the way I would interpret #91 ceteris paribus (everything else being equal, knowing nothing else).

You two are stretching for the moon to make your point, and it shows up as being argumentative.

I guess you don’t want to hear the other pro/con arguments here?

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/quaeritur-where-did-mass-facing-the-people-come-from/

Read my signature …

Sorry, I turned the option off. I found the page loads faster without signatures and graphics.

 

[paperwight66]

I agree.

God (In the tabernacle) is in front of you"! I mean Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament so when I see the priest facing the congregation, I always picture Jesus standing there and the priest with his back turned making his petitions to Christ on behalf of the parish. It looks weird because IMHO it is weird. I always wondered if the priest would celebrate Mass versus populum if Christ was standing there in His visible form and not in His hidden form. If not then why do it now? I wonder if priests ask themselves this question…

With respect, you have misunderstood the focus of Mass. We are not there to offer prayers to Christ, we are there to offer Christ to the Father. The Tabernacle is not where we are directing our prayers. It doesn’t have to be present for a Mass to be offered, which would be the logical extension of what you say in your post.

 

[Lormar]

Sorry, I turned the option off. I found the page loads faster without signatures and graphics.

You’re right, PV, they do. Thanks!

 

[floresco]

Guess what, Floresco — I don’t have to. The Church has spoken. The liturgy in the OF almost universally, given a few isolated exceptions, is celebrated in this manner because the Bishops have directed the clergy thusly in their jurisdictions, as per their understanding of Church teaching.

You know to whom you may go if you want to complain, for it is falling on my very deaf ears at this point. Bye.

The Church has not spoken in the way that you think it has. I just reread the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and it does not say anything about versus populum as you seemed to claim it does.

Nor have you presented any evidence that bishops direct their clergy to celebrate this way. From comments I have heard from priests, I have the impression that the choice is left to the celebrant.

Rest assured that I am not going to complain about you making inadequate arguments for your position. Since I disagree with you, I am pleased to see it.

 

[PhilOSophia]

The only requisite would have been to state that the altar be free-standing, so that incensing could be facilitated.

Is that meant to be a reason for the table altar? I’ve yet to see a N.O. mass where anything is incensed.

One of the problems with the New Mass and the spirit behind it is the desperate chasing after ‘The People’, who, after the mass was rewritten for them, stayed away in droves anyway.

‘The People’s Mass’. The vernacular. The lay lectors. The folky hymns. Versus Populum. They just make a thing which is meant to be mysterious, more banal.

When I clap my hands the scales will fall from the eyes of progressives everywhere and they will see the error in what they are doing …

Ready?

3 …

2 …

1 …
**
CLAP!**

 

[TimothyH]

False. That isn’t a teaching of the Church. It’s novelty that has been introduced since Vatican II.

There has been so much novelty in the history of the Church which we accept today as normal, and even celebrate as traditional.

The Franciscans were novel, as were the Dominicans. Religious orders which were not cloisterd monks were completely new at one time and there was a deep distrust of them by some, to the point where some bishops forbade them from entering their diocese.

The introduction of aristotelian philosopy and the application of reason and logic to theology was a huge innovation. Prior to the rise of the great universites in the 1100,'s, theology was monastic, based on lectio divina and beditation on scripture. Abelard introduced philosophy to theology and it was so radical that he was condemned by most of his contemporaries, but ultimately it led to the work of St. Thomas.

Charlemagne forced gregorian chant on the clerics in Europe under penalty of death.

St. Louid de Montfort’s teaching on Marian devotion was novel to the point that he was thrown out of at least one diocese.

Even Blessed Pope John Paul II’s catechesis “Theology of the Body” is novel. It is completely new. He has expanded the Church’s understanding of the human body and human sexuality in ways that the Church has not thought of.

Half of what we take for granted today was once a novelty. Many were against the novelty of personal ownership of Bibles and personal reading of scripture at one time.

-Tim-