Turn the altar back around?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flopfoot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
porthos11 said:
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.

.
Click to expand...
The Bishop has full authority on this matter and infact, a Roman Catholic Chuch can not be built in a diocese without approval of the Bishop, this also includes the norms of the Mass in which case, the USCCB state that the priest will face the people.

Mother Angelica lost this fight because the priests saying Mass at the new church faces the people. The priest at the EWTN TV chapel, faces the people.

If it wasn’t mandated, Mother Angelica would’ve gotten her way and the priest would be saying Mass with his back to the people. However, as I pointed out, such is not the case.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The Bishop has full authority on this matter and infact, a Roman Catholic Chuch can not be built in a diocese without approval of the Bishop, this also includes the norms of the Mass in which case, the USCCB state that the priest will face the people.

Mother Angelica lost this fight because the priests saying Mass at the new church faces the people. The priest at the EWTN TV chapel, faces the people.

If it wasn’t mandated, Mother Angelica would’ve gotten her way and the priest would be saying Mass with his back to the people. However, as I pointed out, such is not the case.

Jim
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what I just said?
 
Since I am new, I haven’t really read this lengthly thread yet, but I noticed today’s gospel spoke about the dinner at the pharisee’s house, where Jesus “reclined” at table.

To recline was the custom of those days, and I’m pretty certain that at the Last Supper, Jesus as Host of the meal, would have been facing His disciples. I’m all for bringing us more into line with the early Church and would be disappointed to go back to ad orientum.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Mother Angelica lost this fight because the priests saying Mass at the new church faces the people. The priest at the EWTN TV chapel, faces the people.
Jim
Click to expand...
Jim,

I looked it up in Raymond Arroyo’s book on Mother Angelica, and I have spoken to those who have been to Mass at Our Lady of the Angels Monastary.

The Vatican affirmed Mother Angelica’s use of ad orientum in the Monastery Chaple and Masses are in fact, regularly said there Ad Orientium.

What the Vatican upheld was Bishop Foley’s prohibition on the BROADCAST of an Ad Orientum liturgy.

Thus, the EWTN Masses are televised from the old chapel , not the new one.
 
Jim,

Here is the Responsum that came out shortly after the Foley\EWTN incident
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Click to expand...
Prot. No 2036/00/L
Click to expand...
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in no. 299 of the Instituto Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which, during the Eucharistic liturgy, the position of the priest versus absidem [facing towards the apse] is to be excluded.
Click to expand...
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:
Click to expand...
Negative, and in accordance with the following explanation.
Click to expand...
adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html
 
with the priest having his back to the congregation at least two things would fall in place that should never have been changed.
Code: 
1)  a crucifix would be at the center of the church 
     and would be very visible.  

2) the chair will no longer be the centerpoint of the  
    Mass it will be the crucifix and the tabernacle which
    would be placed in prominence. That never should 
    have been moved in the first place.
 
Brendan said:
Jim,

I looked it up in Raymond Arroyo’s book on Mother Angelica, and I have spoken to those who have been to Mass at Our Lady of the Angels Monastary.

The Vatican affirmed Mother Angelica’s use of ad orientum in the Monastery Chaple and Masses are in fact, regularly said there Ad Orientium.

What the Vatican upheld was Bishop Foley’s prohibition on the BROADCAST of an Ad Orientum liturgy.

Thus, the EWTN Masses are televised from the old chapel , not the new one.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about the EWTN Chapel here, or the monastery Chapel, but the new Church at the new Monastery. From all the Masses I’ve seen televised from the new Monastery Church(not the daily televised Mass from the studio chapel), the priest is facing the people.

Also, monastic orders can follow norms different than that of the diocese, if the Bishop approves. In the convent Chapel, apparently, the priest has his back to the nuns and invited guest.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I’m not talking about the EWTN Chapel here, or the monastery Chapel, but the new Church at the new Monastery. From all the Masses I’ve seen televised from the new Monastery Church(not the daily televised Mass from the studio chapel), the priest is facing the people.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I said, the only Masses that may be televised anywhere in the Diocese of Birmingham are those that are versus populum.

All other Masses said AT THE NEW MONASTERY are said ad orientum.

Read Raymond Arroyo’s book “Mother Angelica”, he covers this part of EWTN history very well, including interviews with the Vatican officials involved in the decision.
 
Jim
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.
Click to expand...
  1. The English translation in the Adoremus hymnal for the two Latin phrases I quoted are “facing the people” for the first, and “facing the altar” for the second. Father Peter Stravinskas in the Catholic Answer Book 3 confirms that the rubrics do presuppose ad orientem in his answer to a specific question on this very topic.
  2. I’ve been to ad orientem Novus Ordo Masses at St. Agnes Church in St. Paul, Minnesota both on Sundays and on weekdays. They were said in the vernacular, btw.
 
scylla said:
Yes, I am.

I enjoy making fun of the hippie type Catholicism we see here in California.

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
You must really live in a pit of a community. Where I live we have no “hippie type Catholicism.” In fact, your use of such a phrase speaks volumes about you…
 
I live in Southern California and agree with the term hippie type, they attend Mass is shorts and t-shirts, some serve as ushers, EMHC’s or even bring the communion offerings to the priest…

What to you call/label that ? Comfortable worship attire ?

james
 
Jakub said:
I live in Southern California and agree with the term hippie type, they attend Mass is shorts and t-shirts, some serve as ushers, EMHC’s or even bring the communion offerings to the priest…

What to you call/label that ? Comfortable worship attire ?

james
Click to expand...
If Jesus was scheduled to visit them in Person at their homes would they receive Him dressed that way?
 
Flopfoot said:
I think it would be a good idea to have the priest and the people face the same direction in Mass as it would make the Mass more ‘God-centric’ (sorry, I invented a word, hope you know what I mean). Like, we worship God together, the priest is leading us in the celebration of Mass but he is not the focus and neither are we. I think it would have a better feel than the way it is now (with the priest facing us like a musician would at a concert), I haven’t seen it done before but I’ve heard that it used to be that way. What do you think? (There is a poll above and you may discuss here).
Click to expand...
Jesus faced the crowds when He spoke…I feel that He wanted to personalize His message. God is about people…about us not only embracing Him–but embracing our community. I think if we turned the altar around, we’d miss that very important aspect of the mass. Just my opinion.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Brendan,
dose Pope Benedict say Mass with his back to the people, or facing the people?

Jim
Click to expand...
Neither, he says Mass facing Christ 🙂

But he will do so both ad orientem and versus populus.

He prefers ad orientem. That how he says Mass in Chapel (his ‘private’ chapel and in the Sistine Chapel).

And technically, that’s how he says Mass in St. Peters. The altar there has always faced East (ad orientem).
 
whatevergirl said:
Jesus faced the crowds when He spoke…I feel that He wanted to personalize His message. God is about people…about us not only embracing Him–but embracing our community. I think if we turned the altar around, we’d miss that very important aspect of the mass. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I fail to see the connection.

The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The homilies and readings are a different part of the Mass.
 
whatevergirl said:
Jesus faced the crowds when He spoke…I feel that He wanted to personalize His message. God is about people…about us not only embracing Him–but embracing our community. I think if we turned the altar around, we’d miss that very important aspect of the mass. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
That I think is the point. The mass is now addressed to the people rather than to God. Marshall McLuan warned of this when he told them to keep the microphone off the altar.
 
j_pod said:
Jesus always faced the people.
The priest is acting as He did.
Click to expand...
Really?

What about the Resurrection itself?

That was hidden behind a rock.

The very definiing act of our Salvation was kept hidden. Christ certainly could have risen in front of people, but chose not to.

Why?

The Eucharist is a re-presentation of not only the Passion, but also of the Resurrection.

And what of the role of the priest himself, is he not to act as a leader, leading us to Christ, leading us to the Resurrection?

That is EXACTLY the symbolism of the ad orientem position.

And that is exactly how +Ratzinger described it when he wrote in favor of it.

Are you honestly claiming to be a better Liturgical Theologian than Pope Benedict?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top