Turn the altar back around?

[Jerry-Jet]

What if you had the altar and the tabernacle come down from the ceiling to be inbetween the priest and kneeling rails which would all be in front of the congregation.

Christ would be the focus of the Mass AND the priest would still be able to face the people.

Give the communicants the Eucharist by intinction while kneeling on both sides in front of the altar and you would solve all problems.

 

[Jakub]

" the priest is facing the people with his back to the tabernacle "

And who is within the Tabernacle ?

Would you worship the Lord that way ?

Sad indeed…

james

 

[Like]

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

Thanks Diane, Beautiful Church and good link to you’re local K of C!

 

[MH84]

I don’t think the Novus Ordo would be compatible with the traditional style. Unless the Novus Ordo would be modified, the priest facing the same direction as the congregation wouldn’t work.

Is it possible to have a part of the Mass facing the congregation ie. introduction, during the readings. And then have the priest facing the tabernacle during the Consecration.

Also, I don’t think priests facing the tabernacle will auotmatically make the irreverently prayed Masses reverent.

 

[porthos11]

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

Actually, every priest has the option to say all or part of the Mass in Latin. Latin is still the official language of the Latin Church.

I would love to attend the current Mass ad orientem and in Latin. There is no need to change the position of the altar; current law calls for the altar to be free-standing, but other than that, ad orientem and Latin is absolutely permitted.

 

[Brendan]

I would love to attend the current Mass ad orientem and in Latin. There is no need to change the position of the altar; current law calls for the altar to be free-standing, but other than that, ad orientem and Latin is absolutely permitted.

Yep, I see it all the time at Assumption Grotto Church in Detroit.

The Mass, in Latin, ad orientum

 

[VociMike]

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

FWIW, I have heard the same thing, that the claims of early versus populem Masses were faulty, but I can’t verify it. Even if it were true, it means that the entire Church, both East and West, early on saw a benefit to switching to ad orientum, and over the centuries she was affirmed in that benefit (or else she would have switched back). Perhaps, if they did switch early in the life of the Church, they switched for exactly the reasons people object to versus populem today.

What I’m suggesting is that if the early Mass was versus populem and the entire Church throught it wise to switch to ad orientum, that is actually an argument for ad orientum, not for versus populem. We should assume that the Church in her wisdom had very good reasons to make this switch and to stick with it, rather than blindly engaging in a primativism that sees all early things as better than all later things.

 

[Brain]

I don’t think the Novus Ordo would be compatible with the traditional style. Unless the Novus Ordo would be modified, the priest facing the same direction as the congregation wouldn’t work.

Is it possible to have a part of the Mass facing the congregation ie. introduction, during the readings. And then have the priest facing the tabernacle during the Consecration.

Also, I don’t think priests facing the tabernacle will auotmatically make the irreverently prayed Masses reverent.

I know several priests who do a “pseudo” oriented mass. That is that they face with the people or at least focus on the same spot (ie their chairs are aimed at the altar, not the people) whenever they are addressing God. The only time they face the people is when they are addressing them directly, and during the concecration because it would be too big of a hullabaloo otherwise.

 

[elvisman]

FWIW, I have heard the same thing, that the claims of early versus populem Masses were faulty, but I can’t verify it. Even if it were true, it means that the entire Church, both East and West, early on saw a benefit to switching to ad orientum, and over the centuries she was affirmed in that benefit (or else she would have switched back). Perhaps, if they did switch early in the life of the Church, they switched for exactly the reasons people object to versus populem today.

What I’m suggesting is that if the early Mass was versus populem and the entire Church throught it wise to switch to ad orientum, that is actually an argument for ad orientum, not for versus populem. We should assume that the Church in her wisdom had very good reasons to make this switch and to stick with it, rather than blindly engaging in a primativism that sees all early things as better than all later things.

**Agreed. **
And, in the same way the Church, in her wisdom at Vatican II thought it wise to switch back.

 

[VociMike]

Agreed.
And, in the same way the Church, in her wisdom at Vatican II thought it wise to switch back.

Vatican II said nothing about the orientation of the priest at Mass. On that there can be no dispute.

 

[AJV]

What I’m suggesting is that if the early Mass was versus populem and the entire Church throught it wise to switch to ad orientum, that is actually an argument for ad orientum, not for versus populem. We should assume that the Church in her wisdom had very good reasons to make this switch and to stick with it, rather than blindly engaging in a primativism that sees all early things as better than all later things.

The early Mass was, from what I’ve read, both ad populum and ad orientum at the same time.

elvisman:

Agreed.
And, in the same way the Church, in her wisdom at Vatican II thought it wise to switch back.

The funny thing is that both the pre-and-post conciliar books allow both options.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

At the Last Supper when Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, he faced the Apostles.

At the Sacred Liturgy, the priest takes the place of Christ, and therefore like Christ at the last supper, faces the people.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Vatican II said nothing about the orientation of the priest at Mass. On that there can be no dispute.

That’s what Mother Angelica thought, until she built that new church and wanted the altar, where the priest would have his back to the people. Bishop Foley, consulted with the Vatican on the issue was was informed and even got into a bit of a confrontation with Mother Angelica, that the Altar must be positioned so that the priest if facing the people.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal
CHAPTER V

1. The main altar should be freestanding to allow the ministers to walk around it easily and Mass to be celebrated facing the people.(my emphasis) It should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centers naturally.[81] The main altar should ordinarily be a fixed, consecrated altar.

 

[jonnyws]

I agree it would be nice to have the priest leading the congregation rather than facing them but the question I find myself asking is not what I would like but what will the Church do. It’s sad but I really doubt that we will ever have the priest facing with us again.

The new mass is good in many ways and I do like having mass in my native language but could we not just have translated the old mass rather than make so many changes that the two are incomparable.

 

[drforjc]

From

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal
CHAPTER V

What you’ve quoted does not say, though, that Mass must be celebrated facing the people; it reads more like an option IMO.

Furthermore, there are rubrics in the Sacramentary itself that appear to assume the priest is generally facing away from the people, for example, at the Ecce Agnus Dei, “… elevatam super patenam tenens,ad populum conversus,clara voce dicit:” and for his own communion “Et sacerdos, ad altare versus, secreto dixit.”
If the priest is assumed to be facing the people the entire time, why would the rubrics make this distinction?

 

[Brendan]

That’s what Mother Angelica thought, until she built that new church and wanted the altar, where the priest would have his back to the people. Bishop Foley, consulted with the Vatican on the issue was was informed and even got into a bit of a confrontation with Mother Angelica, that the Altar must be positioned so that the priest if facing the people.

Jim

No true,

Bishop Foley attempted to ban the ad orientum Mass and was informed by the Vatican that he could not prohibit it.

What the Bishop COULD do was to require that any televised Mass be versus populum.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What you’ve quoted does not say, though, that Mass must be celebrated facing the people; it reads more like an option IMO.

Furthermore, there are rubrics in the Sacramentary itself that appear to assume the priest is generally facing away from the people, for example, at the Ecce Agnus Dei, “… elevatam super patenam tenens,ad populum conversus,clara voce dicit:” and for his own communion “Et sacerdos, ad altare versus, secreto dixit.”
If the priest is assumed to be facing the people the entire time, why would the rubrics make this distinction?

It says that the Mass is to be celebrated with the priest facing the people. It says that the altar, “should” be positioned so that the priest can walk around it.

I don’t understand Latin, but my guess is that you’re misinterpreting what it means, because I’ve yet to see a priest with his back to the people, except on EWTN before the new church was built, since Vatican II. However, even on EWTN, the claim was that the priest was saying Mass for the Nuns behind the grill, and therefore was facing the people. However that changed at the new Church and the priest faces the people.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No true,

Bishop Foley attempted to ban the ad orientum Mass and was informed by the Vatican that he could not prohibit it.

What the Bishop COULD do was to require that any televised Mass be versus populum.

Not from what I remember. It was when the new Church was being built, Mother Angelica wanted the altar positioned so that the priest would have his back to the people, as was the case in the telivision chapel, when the nuns were still living there. However, the vatican said that the priest must face the people and that’s what Bishop Foley said must happen at the new church, before he would dedicate it.

In fact,

adoremus.org/1199-Foley.html
Bishop’s Decree Raises Questions

by Helen Hull Hitchcock
A decree issued by Birmingham Bishop David Foley forbidding any priest within his diocese to celebrate Mass facing the altar rather than facing the congregation has raised many questions across the spectrum of liturgical opinion.

The decree was sent to all priests and “juridical persons” in the diocese on October 18, to take effect on November 18.

The bishop’s introduction to the decree stated that a “well-intentioned but flawed movement” encourages priests “to take liberties with the Mass by celebrating in a manner called ad orientem, that is, with their backs to the people” without the permission of a bishop.

“This amounts to making a political statement, and is dividing the people”, Bishop Foley wrote.

Also:

First, the bishop states that the practice of facing the people is a “legal custom” in the diocese; that is, it has been “legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years” (Canon 26); therefore the tradition (or “immemorial custom”) of facing the altar is abrogated.

Second, he cites the authority of a bishop to govern the liturgy in his own diocese: “As bishop of this diocese, I have, as the successor of the apostles in union with the Holy Father, the absolute duty to protect it from innovation or sacrilege”.

The decree, issued as a “particular law for the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama”, proclaims that:

1. In churches and shrines, as well as oratories where Mass is open to the public, the priest celebrating the Eucharist at a free-standing altar is to face the people.

1. At any Mass that is or will be televised for broadcast or videotaped for public dissemination, the priest is to use a free-standing altar and face the people.

These norms apply to all priests who celebrate the public Eucharistic liturgy of the Roman rite within the diocese of Birmingham, including visiting priests.

Jim

 

[porthos11]

Not from what I remember. It was when the new Church was being built, Mother Angelica wanted the altar positioned so that the priest would have his back to the people, as was the case in the telivision chapel, when the nuns were still living there. However, the vatican said that the priest must face the people and that’s what Bishop Foley said must happen at the new church, before he would dedicate it.

In fact,

Also:

Jim

The Bishop is within his rights to mandate versus populum. Nevertheless, the universal norms of the Church allow ad orientem. As mentioned, the altar is required to be free-standing, so that it can be incensed all around and the OPTION of celebrating Mass versus populum can be exercised (just as incensing is an option too). The wording of the GIRM does not mandate versus populum. In fact, it instructs the priest to “face to people” at certain times, which would be superfluous in a versus populum Mass.

Versus populum is not illegal whatsoever, and bishops may indeed mandate it, but some do grant freedom to celebrate ad orientem such as the bishop of Detroit. See the pictures linked above for Assumption Grotto. That’s not a traditional Mass; that’s the Paul VI Mass celebrated ad orientem.

.