Turn the altar back around?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flopfoot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Brendon
I am definately not a Liturgical Theologian!
I just feel that since Jesus did not specify wether the priest should face the people or have his back to the people, it is up to the Church to decide. It frankly is ok with me what the Church decides on this matter. I merely stated that I like the priest bringing us together in this “celebration.” I like seeing what he is doing. I feel he is encouraging us to join in. I like that is not a “secret” what he is doing. We are all seeing and joining. Again, if the Church changes this, I will certainly not complain.
Thanks
 
Did someone mention Assumption Grotto? 😃

I can’t argue theology, but I can put up a pretty good spiritual argument in favor of the ad orientem posture.

When I first encountered it at Assumption Grotto I was almost agitated. I found myself shifting in my pew as if to seek the face of the priest. I then suddenly realized it is the face of God I should be seeking in the Mass.

Worship involves detachment from all that is not Him. When the priest leads us into the Eucharistic Prayer - facing east along with us, it removes the person of the priest as he puts on Christ. This posture enables me to detach myself from the priest as man, and embrace Christ.

No reading or debates convinced me that ad orientem is the way to go. It just came to me while experiencing it. That’s all I need. Now, I find it totally distracting when I’m in many parishes where the priest is facing me. I am most especially distracted when he looks around at the congregation during the words of Consecration. If the Mass must be celebrated versus populum, I prefer the priest to look down at the Host or Chalice during consecration.

Also, the first part of the Mass is addressed to the people and so the priest faces us. However, the Eucharistic Prayer is addressed to God. It is broken momentarily by the Rite of Peace when he addresses the congregation, but in the ad orientem liturgy, the priest turns to the people at this point. Therefore, why would he need to face the people during a part of the Mass which is addressing God?

This is Fr. Eduard Perrone - pastor of Assumption Grotto in Detroit during Elevation on Gaudete Sunday 2007. He is wearing a traditional Rose colored, Roman chasuble.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I see you all have some excellent points.
It seems that this is about personal preference. After all, the Church, in Her great wisdom, did decide to have the priest face the people.
At the Last Supper, Jesus did not have His back to His Apostles.
To all of you very estute Catholics, this may be very simplistic reasoning.
I will tell you that I have been going to Mass for 50+ years. I loved the Latin Mass because that is what I knew. When the Church decided to change, I was sorry. It was hard to change. As our priest said, accept the “new wine skins.”
I must say also that when I went to Mass, I went because it was a mortal sin not to go. I couldn’t see or hear what was going on. I did not feel a part of it.
With the changes, I became more involved in the Mass. I began to feel encouraged to participate. I could finally see, hear and understand. I could sense the priests encouragement to participate. I truely fell in love with the Mass and with my faith. I feel this was due to the changes
 
j_pod said:
I see you all have some excellent points.
It seems that this is about personal preference. After all, the Church, in Her great wisdom, did decide to have the priest face the people.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Church did NOT decide to have the priest face the people.

All the Church did was ALLOW the priest to face the people if he so chose, and left that choice to the celebrant.
 
j_pod said:
As I said, “personal preference.”
Click to expand...
I know, that’s why the word ‘allow’ was more appropriate than ‘have’.

‘Have’ implies some sort of mandate to do so, which there is not.
 
Brendan,

Did you even care about my personal witness or are you more concerned about winning a point?
I would pray that the former is correct especially since I presumed that this is a forum for people who are faith filled Christians who want to learn more about their faith and to be in touch with people and topics that will allow them to grow. I enjoy lively debate, but not sparing.
 
I remember when the altar was at the back and contained th tabernacle in the centter.

Many parishes today have the tabernacle in an “anteroom” and when we enter the church and genuflect or bow before entering the pew we are acknowledging the chair since the tabernacle is not visible. This is not a good thing because we are there solely to honor Christ. The tabernacle also had an aura of His Presence and it aided us in a more contemplative frame of mind and spirit/

Today, in my personal experiences, Homilies have become very secularized and spiritually uninspiring…but that could depend on the celebrant. So, in so far as “involvement” for me at least, I become more “detatched” when the homilies are given in this manner. That said, it is the Eucharist that soothes all the angst that I may have.
 
HI, All
Maybe we can get the communion rails back also.

Peace, OneNow1
 
People!

The Mass is a celebration!

Which ever direction it takes to have us “celebrate” together is the point.

Remember — The Jews were so busy following rules.

We want participation!!

God does not need us. We need Him!!!
 
johnstown_johnn said:
If Jesus was scheduled to visit them in Person at their homes would they receive Him dressed that way?
Click to expand...
Didn’t Jesus wear a suit? It’s not what’s on the inside but what’s in the heart that counts. The church should be happy people show up.
 
LilyM said:
See this picture makes me a little uneasy - it looks too much like the priest is offering the Host to the statue of Mary, since the Tabernacle, which really should be a focal point, is obscured.
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken, there is a large crucifix above. I guess it’s only the close angle of the shot that has this effect?
 
LilyM said:
See this picture makes me a little uneasy - it looks too much like the priest is offering the Host to the statue of Mary, since the Tabernacle, which really should be a focal point, is obscured.
Click to expand...
The Elevation is lifting up the Host to show the people, not an offering. In versus populum Masses, is the elevation offering the Host to the congregation?
 
LilyM said:
See this picture makes me a little uneasy - it looks too much like the priest is offering the Host to the statue of Mary, since the Tabernacle, which really should be a focal point, is obscured.
Click to expand...
Outside of Mass, you are correct, the focus should always be on Christ present in the Tabernacle.

DURING Mass, the focus should be on the Liturgy of the Mass itself, especially the Eucharist confected before us.

The curtain is appropriate during the Sacrifice of the Mass. The focus is on the Sacrifice present before us in the Eucharist that Christ, through the celebrant, is offering in Sacrifice to the Father in attonment of our sins.
 
j_pod said:
People!

The Mass is a celebration!

Which ever direction it takes to have us “celebrate” together is the point.

Remember — The Jews were so busy following rules.

We want participation!!

God does not need us. We need Him!!!
Click to expand...
Mass is a Holy Sacrifice celebrated by the priest. Only the priest is “celebrating”, and be very sure to separate the use of the term “celebration” in regards to the Mass from it’s common term used to denote such events as parties. The priest is the celebrant in that he performs the Holy Sacrifice. That is what Mass is about. It is NOT about the congregation, or even the person of the priest himself (as at Mass he takes on the role of Christ).

Besides, what exactly does “active participation” mean? Prior to Vatican II St. Pius X used that term, as did Pius XII, but their defination (and the true defination of the Council), which called for the congregation to “assist” in the Mass through joining their hearts and minds to the actions of the priest, seems to have been discarded to make way for the laity to actually take on the actions of the priest.
 
Caesar said:
Besides, what exactly does “active participation” mean? Prior to Vatican II St. Pius X used that term, as did Pius XII, but their defination (and the true defination of the Council), which called for the congregation to “assist” in the Mass through joining their hearts and minds to the actions of the priest, seems to have been discarded to make way for the laity to actually take on the actions of the priest.
Click to expand...
John Paul II and Pope Benedict followed Pope Pius’s lead on this as well.

Pope Benedict devoted an entire chapter in “The Spirt of the Liturgy” to describe exactly what is mean by “Active Participation” and how Silence is necessary for “Full and Active Participation”

According to +Benedict, the “Full and Active Participation” of the Faithful occurs when they devote their full attendtion to the Readings, Gospel and Homily, taking them to heart,

And then, in silence, offering themselves fully to God, along with the Sacrifice offered by the Priest.

That is the full and active participation called for by Vatican II, and, in each case, it requries silence on behalf of the faithful.
 
drforjc said:
The Elevation is lifting up the Host to show the people, not an offering. In versus populum Masses, is the elevation offering the Host to the congregation?
Click to expand...
From understanding you are correct, and the Host should not be elevated higher than the celebrant’s head.

Jim
 
Brendan said:
Where is that regulation listed?
Click to expand...
I don’t have the documents, but my info came from a priest who gave a conference on the history of the Mass. His explanation was that the priest, acting as Christ, does not elevate the host above his head.

He said the practice of elevating the host above the head came from the Middle Ages, where people actually paid for front row seats in order to see the host as it was consecrated. In those days, the host was not elevated about the head, but being the majority of the congregation could not see it, the practice change to where the host was elevevated so that all could see.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top