Turn the altar back around?

[blackrobe]

It’s not a matter of turning altars around or who has his back to whom. It is about everyone facing East as was the unbroken tradition of the Mass until the Novus Ordo allowed an experimental innovation.

IMHO, this innovation, among others, was siezed upon by folks who want to emphasize the communal meal aspect of the Mass at the expense of the sacrificial aspect as well as diminish the role of the ministerial priesthood.

This is the same mode of thought that sees “active participation” as transitive rather than immanent activity. It bespeaks a defective reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

JSA+

 

[stmaria]

For me it is very simple. At Mass we are praying to God. We are asking for His forgiveness. When I was a child and I had to ask my father for forgiveness, I never turned my back on him. Of course we should all face God in the Tabernacle and Jesus on the cross. Turn the Altar around!

 

[LilyM]

For me it is very simple. At Mass we are praying to God. We are asking for His forgiveness. When I was a child and I had to ask my father for forgiveness, I never turned my back on him. Of course we should all face God in the Tabernacle and Jesus on the cross. Turn the Altar around!

Well isn’t Jesus equally present on the altar itself after the consecration? Wherever the altar be located? And wouldn’t the Liturgy of the Word be done facing the people anyway? (no point reading the scripture or preaching the homily to the Tabernacle!)

 

[Brain]

It seems that the best way to deal with the orientation of the priest depends on 2 factors: architecture and solemnity.

Architecturally some churches are just not set up to where the symbolism of the priest as the leader of the “pilgrim people” would make sense.

Some churches (all fan churches, circular churches, or any church where the altar is in the center of the building) are a “bride of Christ” model. The sight lines of the pews all triangulate on the priest, so the symbolism is the Church (Bride) meeting Christ (groom) in the person of the priest. In such churches facing the priest toward the people is necessary and symbolically ideal. (Ironically, the modernists who like fan churches which highlight and focus on the priest, are the same people who want to de-emphasize the role of the priest)

In churches where everyone does or can face the same direction, the pilgrim people model can be used and the priest can stand at the head of the congregation and face with them.

Some Churches are convertible or their sight lines are sufficiently ambiguous that either model can be used.

HOWEVER and unfortunatly, pilgrim people masses (even NO masses) are so touchy and are such a divisive action that it is just not worth the trouble to obey the architecture all the time. So what I suggest is to use the pilgrim people model as a high level of progressive solemnity. That is, a pilgrim people model could be employed on major holidays (when they make a lot of sense BTW). Think, Easter Vigil and Morning facing east together awaiting or seeing the dawn which symbolizes Christ. or Midnight mass at Christmas “following the star” east. and so on.

So between architecture and progressive solemnity, you can find some situation where you can orient a mass properly and be less divisive than if you were doing it constantly.

 

[otjm]

“the priest has his back to the people” is what I always hear from people. That is a sensationalized way of putting it. It puts emphasis on the negative (or perceived negative).

You never hear those same people complaining about the people in front of them having their backs to them in the pews!

No, but having grown up before Vatican 2, I can remember how many people were grateful when the priest was no longer ad orientem.

As to senstaionalized, I disagree; that is what people saw. There may habve been a reason he was ad orientem, but the vast majority of people had no clue wha the reason was; just that it was “always” done that way. One only had to have heard comments like “I always wondered what he was doing up there and why it had to be so secret” to understand that to many people, Mass was something done to them, not something they had a real sense of participating in.

 

[otjm]

Of course the Altars should be turned back. The priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar and leads the people in prayer. This is a more God-oriented Liturgy rather then the people-oriented one so common now.

Your joking, right?

My, I wonder what Mass you have been attending. I have never ever attended a Mass that was people oriented; they were always God oriented. And I started attending long before anyone consdered that Roncalli should be Pope.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

My grandfather (a Deacon) said that there is no rule stopping a Priest from turning the Altar around. They just can’t say it in Latin, and the Novus Ordo rubrics must be followed…I didn’t know this, but I hope by making everyone here aware of it, it can open the possibility of a movement in the laity…lets pray for that

Latin is not prohibited.

There is a Church in Detroit that uses a Latin NO Mass.
Here it is! Assumption Grotto

I go there occasionally since my Confraternity is there.

Not only do the do the Current Mass in Latin at certain Masses, the Masses are done ad orientem and some are done at the high altar.

 

[otjm]

My grandfather (a Deacon) said that there is no rule stopping a Priest from turning the Altar around. They just can’t say it in Latin, and the Novus Ordo rubrics must be followed…I didn’t know this, but I hope by making everyone here aware of it, it can open the possibility of a movement in the laity…lets pray for that

Your grandfather may not understand that the bishop has something to say about the altar, and further that the Mass of Paul 6th may be said in Latin. One does not have to go to the Tridentine rite to say Latin.

 

[otjm]

Elvisman: just because the Priest is sacrificing the Lamb of God just as the Israelites of the Old Covenants did in the Temple of Jerusalem by facing away from the people does not mean the Father, Christ, or the Spirit are not present. That’s a little selfish in my opinion. Christ, The Perfect Sacrifice, should be the center of attention. He isn’t there to please you, He called you to Himself at the Mass, not the other way around.

I went back and re-read the post by elvisman; I don’t recall that he said anything about the Father, Christ or the Spirit not being present; that seems to be what is called a red herring? As in, it has nothing to do with his post?

And how do you think that Christ is not the center of attention when He is not shielded by the priest’s body from the congregation - help me here, I am missing something.

Selfish? Elvisman quoted a book written before Vatican 2, about how the Mass was celebrated in the early Church. How is that selfish? I mean, I mean, if Christ were to show up at your parish next week, and ask you to come up near him and be seated on the floor with some cushions and celebrate the Mass as it was done in the Last Supper, would you criticize His sense of rubrics too?

 

[otjm]

It’s not a matter of turning altars around or who has his back to whom. It is about everyone facing East as was the unbroken tradition of the Mass until the Novus Ordo allowed an experimental innovation.

Or we could say until the rubrics changed, because the rubrics allow the altar to be “turned around”. Experimentla innovation is simply a way of putting down what one does not like, as if the whole Church wants to go in a different direction, but some few people are railroading it in another.

IMHO, this innovation, among others, was siezed upon by folks who want to emphasize the communal meal aspect of the Mass at the expense of the sacrificial aspect as well as diminish the role of the ministerial priesthood.

Or it could be said that the Church wanted to bring out the aspect of a Sacred Meal, which had been so ignored that it was an aspect of the Mass to which only lip service was paid, and that clericalism was not part of what Christ intended in the priesthood, and a balancing was done to bring back the aspects of servanthood and shepard. Kind of like an issue of perspective, isn’t it - is the glass half empty or half full?

This is the same mode of thought that sees “active participation” as transitive rather than immanent activity. It bespeaks a defective reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

JSA+

I have read Sacrosanctum Conciliu too, and I do not find anywhere that Active participation is contained within the concept of simply showing up. You seem to be confusing active with passive. Last time I looked in a dictionary, they were not synonymous.

 

[scapularkid8]

I mean, I mean, if Christ were to show up at your parish next week, and ask you to come up near him and be seated on the floor with some cushions and celebrate the Mass as it was done in the Last Supper, would you criticize His sense of rubrics too?

I’m not criticizing rubrics (<- red herring!). This is really cool, check this out: Christ is present at my parish every week! He hasn’t objected yet to the way we’re doing things around Him…no earthquakes or lightning from the Tabernacle like the Ark of the Covenant…so I guess he dosen’t want us to pull up a seat. The Holy Spirit has developed the Mass to how it should be.

If I may refer you to the line from Elvisman’s post: “so that WE could have Christ present with US.” My logic was that he was inferring Novus Ordo: Christ is with us because the Mass is more about “us”, Tridentine Mass: the Mass is less about the people and therefore does not serve their spiritual needs regardless if Christ is present.

I apologize if I sound rude or stupid, but I’m just passionate about this (watch out for a teenager on a mission)! Regardless of our opinions on this I would just like to say that this is healthy for our Church and our faith. Hopefully, through discussion guided by the Spirit, we can all take SOMETHING out of this little poll. I have nothing against the Novus Ordo…I just have a love for the Holy Trinity so much that I think we should praise God without cutting corners and I’m sure that’s how everyone here feels as well.

 

[elvisman]

Someone can (I should say will) correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that that view *was *commonly held at the beginning of the last century by many scholars but has been contradicted by modern scholarship and analysis of archaeological discoveries? The late Fr. Gamber wrote a book on it, and also Fr. Bouyer mentions it a few times.

Hadn’t heard that. I’ll have to do some research.
Interesting . . .
Thanks!

 

[otjm]

If I may refer you to the line from Elvisman’s post: “so that WE could have Christ present with US.” My logic was that he was inferring Novus Ordo: Christ is with us because the Mass is more about “us”, Tridentine Mass: the Mass is less about the people and therefore does not serve their spiritual needs regardless if Christ is present. {/QUOTE]Well, why do you think Christ is present if it isn’t for us? That does not make the Mass about the people. There were many, many people who were glad to see the new rubrics for the Mass, as many found their spiritual needs met in a far greater way. Remove a lot of the goofiness that has occured and you might just find some real worship going on.

 

[elvisman]

I’m not criticizing rubrics (<- red herring!). This is really cool, check this out: Christ is present at my parish every week! He hasn’t objected yet to the way we’re doing things around Him…no earthquakes or lightning from the Tabernacle like the Ark of the Covenant…so I guess he dosen’t want us to pull up a seat. The Holy Spirit has developed the Mass to how it should be.

If I may refer you to the line from Elvisman’s post: “so that WE could have Christ present with US.” My logic was that he was inferring Novus Ordo: Christ is with us because the Mass is more about “us”, Tridentine Mass: the Mass is less about the people and therefore does not serve their spiritual needs regardless if Christ is present.

I apologize if I sound rude or stupid, but I’m just passionate about this (watch out for a teenager on a mission)! Regardless of our opinions on this I would just like to say that this is healthy for our Church and our faith. Hopefully, through discussion guided by the Spirit, we can all take SOMETHING out of this little poll. I have nothing against the Novus Ordo…I just have a love for the Holy Trinity so much that I think we should praise God without cutting corners and I’m sure that’s how everyone here feels as well.

What is the purpose of the mass? Is it not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
What or WHO is being sacrificed. WHY is the sacrifice being celebrated?
It is the ongoing, ETERNAL sacrifice that our Lord makes for US so that WE can have ETERNAL life with HIM!
**The mass is what God does for US. We CAN’T do anything FOR Him. When we pray or fast or sacrifice - that is for US so that we can be CLOSER TO HIM. **
**WE bring bread and wine - HE manifests himself as food for us so that WE can have ETERNAL LIFE (John 6:54). **It really irks me when people thing that THEY are doing GOD a favor by attending mass.
If you don’t want to accept that the mass was celebrated in the Early Church with the priest facing the people, so be it. But DON’T tell me that Jesus didn’t make the ULTIMATE sacrifice for YOU and ME - and everybody else who serves him.
Selfish?? If you want to call the yearning for salvation “selfish” - that’s your problem. I thought that is what we were here for . . .

 

[scapularkid8]

I never said I didn’t accept the early Christian priests didn’t face the people(<- red herring!..again!)

I don’t think you need to shout at me via colored capitals. “And they will know we are Christians by our love…”

We should desire nothing but to love God with “all our minds, all our strength, and all our heart”…Shema Israel

“Christ, which of the commandments is the greatest’ and He replied 'Hear O Israel! you shall love the Lord your God with all your mind, all your strength, and all your heart.” … ‘you are right in saying these things!’ replied the honest Pharasiee (sp?)’ and Christ said ‘Amen, you are not far from salvation…’"

Our purpose is to humbly love the Lord, and by that we gain salvation. This recalls a passage (can’t remember the citation, sorry!) “Only by faith in Jesus Christ is a man made whole before God. No observance of the Law can achieve this.”

This is off topic…truce.

 

[scylla]

elvisman is right in stating that we should be selfish, as ultimately we should be concerned with our own salvation. It doesn’t matter if I help everyone else get to heaven and neglect my own soul.

We should go to Mass for our own Salvation, but the one point I disagree with that some people think is that we don’t go there to feel like we get something but to unite our actions with the Sacrifice of Jesus to get something out of it.
Feelings don’t matter, emotions don’t matter what matters is what we give and accept from God.

There is also no Mass without a Priest so he must lead and stand in the person of Christ to do the actions that Christ did to allow us to participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Since the priest leads I am in favor of all of us facing the same direction, I am not a protestant, I am there to focus on God not a man. (another reason I am in favor of a better Mass translation with responses like “and with your spirit” we should focus on Christ)

We are not in management and the Church is not a democracy so ultimately this poll and our opinions don’t matter too much. We can just complain when our shephards don’t do a good job or cheer when they do, pray for them and be obedient to God.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[bilop]

My wedding mass was The Pauline Mass in Latin, celebrated ad orientum (“back to the people”), so that is certainly valid.

Also, people have this misconception that in the Tridentine Mass the Priest **always **faces alway from the people.

He faces the people for the reading, the gospel, the homily and the Blessings.

God Bless

 

[AJV]

My wedding mass was The Pauline Mass in Latin, celebrated ad orientum (“back to the people”), so that is certainly valid.

Also, people have this misconception that in the Tridentine Mass the Priest **always **faces alway from the people.

He faces the people for the reading, the gospel, the homily and the Blessings.

God Bless

Not for the readings (unless he rereads them) unless he is celebrating versus populum

 

[bilop]

Not for the readings (unless he rereads them) unless he is celebrating versus populum

Yes, I meant when he reads them in English. Which I’ve always seen for the Gospel, at least.

 

[trth_skr]

I voted yes. I don’t go to Church for entertainment.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com