Turning around the altars

[newyorkcatholic]

To clarify my comment, it is the Church’s leaders who wanted to mimic Protestant practices. Bugnini often wrote about changing things so as not to scandalize Protestants.

Of course most didn’t say this. But they wanted and implemented countless hanges that they knew were in conformity with Protestant practices. I think if we take their expressed reasons at face value (using the vernacular to help laity understand) without considering that they knew this was Protestant practice, is naive. Consider that all Catholic clergy would have known that Trent upheld Latin precisely because Protestants denied Latin should be used.

The mindset of the laity was “pray, pay, obey” so they went along, or quietly left.

 

[Exsilivm]

I don’t think so. If that were the case, then you would have seen primarily the conservative Catholics leave, and you would have seen widespread discontentment and protests about the change, people flocking to churches where the altar had been kept ad orientem, people cutting off donations unless the priest put things back as they had been, etc. None of that, though, seems to be the case.

We will have to disagree. Your characterization of Catholics of the 1970s does not accord with my experiences at the time.

Conservative Catholics focused on formal obedience. As far as selecting other churches, for most there was no place to go and information on the SSPX or independent chapels was hard to get pre-internet. Many left for the Episcopal Church, which would not undergo massive change until 1977, and in practice, was fought to a near standstill for the next ten years through the vestry system prevelent in that sect. Many others simply stopped attending except at Christmas. The idea of protest was repugnant to most established people at that time, and the economics of parish life very different. It was cheaper to run a parish then, even adjusted for inflation. Gasoline cost around 40 cents a gallon.

You are, however, correct that most of the lay people who liked the changes were not conscious Protestants. Outright protestantizing came later, in the 1980s. They were motivated by conformity which was far more openly powerful then. They simply did not want to be out of step with the prevailing mood of the country. They did not know, of course, that the society was in the process of deconstruction.

 

[Brendan]

The bells rang during the Eucharistic prayer, not to praise God but to wake everyone up, and alert them that something was about to happen, 'cos .

That is actually a common fallacy. They WERE rung to praise God, and to alert the whole community. The bell at the altar would be the signal to the men at the bell ropes to rung out, so the whole community, the whole town, could pause and offer a moment of Adoration.

Likewise with the Angelus bells. It was for the whole community

If you think about it, if what you say was true, that the whole purpose for the sanctus bells was to wake people up or get them to look up from their rosary beads, then they would not be carried over into the Ordinary form, where the Consecration prayers are said aloud and not in a low voice.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

I would disagree that most Catholics of the period wanted the altars changed. They proved it by voting with their feet.

It probably wasn’t just the altars changing but all the changes people saw. Many people were angry or confused. I have had several people mention, I was taught and impressed certain things and then they up and change and don’t follow what they taught us. I think it was a very confusing time.

 

[edwest2]

I wonder if anybody can help me, here. Please, let’s **not **let this become a debate about the relative merits of, or historicity of, ad populum versus ad orientam!

Does anybody know exactly when and how people began to believe that Vatican II had instructed churches to rip altars from the walls, or set up second altars so the priest could celebrate ad populum? Many people, wrongly as most of us know, think that the Council or the Pope, etc., mandated this. It is not in the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, either. So - was there some specific publication, or statement, or whatever kind of influence it may have been, that caused this to begin happening? Or was it some much more vague impulse?

I am not talking about freestanding altars that had altar rails all around them, like at St. Peter’s Basilica, or in other churches like the one in the picture below.

Am trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint how and when this got started

There was no altar ripping. I was there before and after Vatican II. And conformity is completely the wrong word to use. Only radicals obsessed over conformity. The mood of the country was changing but the Catholic Church was not going to reflect the mood of the country, not in 1962 and not in 2012. And it was not the Catholic Church that was changing the mood of the country.

The fact is that there were (and always have been) dissidents within the Church. Recently, on Catholic Radio, a priest was telling listeners how the bishops would go to Rome, listen to the Pope, announce their assent, and then come back and continue what they were doing. I was in Catholic school at the time (early 1960s). All we were told was that the new, smaller altar (the old one was left right where it had always been), the priest facing the people and the Mass being in English, was to make it more understandable to the people and encourage greater participation. (Big deal. We had Mass in Polish too.) No one told us who ordered this, but we loved and trusted our nuns and priests, so we trusted them.

In fact, in the West, Christianity was part of daily life and our values were generally taken into consideration by society and the media at large, and respected. It was inconceivable for us Catholics to lie to, mislead or misguide others. So, when were misled, lied to and misguided, we didn’t think that was the case at all, and that included the society at large and the media, at least until the late 1960s. We believed someone in high authority had authorized the altar change. I did NOT love God less or attend Church less after Vatican II. And it is entirely false to blame a drop in Church attendance to things that were never even suggested by the Council. Once again, we had no reason to believe that any changes were not authorized by someone with the authority to do so.

It is only recently that a handful of dissenters from that time period within the Church have been exposed. It was a slow, gradual process, but things are literally beginning to turn around today.

Peace,
Ed

Peace,
Ed

 

[triumphguy]

That is actually a common fallacy. They WERE rung to praise God, and to alert the whole community. The bell at the altar would be the signal to the men at the bell ropes to rung out, so the whole community, the whole town, could pause and offer a moment of Adoration.

Likewise with the Angelus bells. It was for the whole community

If you think about it, if what you say was true, that the whole purpose for the sanctus bells was to wake people up or get them to look up from their rosary beads, then they would not be carried over into the Ordinary form, where the Consecration prayers are said aloud and not in a low voice.

Of course they were rung to praise god - I was exaggerating to make a point. Despite the fact that the bells were rung to praise God, but the effect was to wake people from their slumber and allow them to see the elevation of the host.

 

[JRKH]

Of course they were rung to praise god - I was exaggerating to make a point. Despite the fact that the bells were rung to praise God, but the effect was to wake people from their slumber and allow them to see the elevation of the host.

You may have been exaggerating to make a point but, at least in my view, it also serves to perpetuate a stereotype. I can assure you that the people in my immediate family, and those around us, were not “slumbering” during mass.
I do recall the little old ladies with their rosaries…but then these were also the same ones you would see at daily mass as well…and in those days that was commonly at 6:00 or 6:30 am. so their devotion could hardly be called into question.

I won’t deny that what you say also occurred, but In these conversations - old v new - I think that the old saying holds true…the one that goes…

“Generalizations are always wrong”…

Oh and by the way - I’ve wanted to tell you for a while - I Love the pic in your signature.

Peace
James

 

[Chatter163]

As Mark Thompson mentioned, there were calls for versus populum celebrations among liturgical scholars throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and after WWII these began to be seen (not commonplace, but not uncommon) in Europe, especially in France, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. I have a book published in the late 1950s that shows photos of these churches, many of which are churches that had to be rebuilt after WII bombings. One sees the architectural styles that became common in the US after Vatican II, with simple decor, wide-open spaces, altars in the round, tabernacles at side or behind free-standing altar stations. It seemed to be understood circa 1957 that this trend was likely to spread. Most Amerricans in the pews were unaware of this until 1965, when they began to see temporary table-style altars placed in front of the altars.

Pre-Vatican II Roman Missals had always included a diagram on the front of the missal, showing the manner in which altars were to be incensed during Mass and Divine Office. Naturally the diagram had always shown the altar as being attached to the wall. But beginning with the 1962 edition, which was the last of the Tridentine editions, this was followed up by a diagram of a free-standing altar (complete with altar cross), and instructions for the incensation of that style of altar. Again, it is obvious that this was a growing trend, one of which most were unaware. When the interim Order of Mass was implemented in 1965, that was the point in the USA at which free-standing altars began to be introduced, so people (and clergy) associated it with the liturgical reforms of the council. Even then, it was up to the bishop to implement. Some bishops, especially in the Midwest, anticipated the changes and pushed for free-standing altars even earlier, while others dragged their feet until the end of the decade.

 

[edwest2]

The question is still not answered. Who ordered the change?

"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:

“It has been the practice in the entire Church, East and West from time immemorial. Contrary to a prevailing misconception, there is no evidence for celebration of Mass versus populum in the first nineteen centuries of the Church’s history, with rare exceptions.”

“Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rich_C]

Don’t forget the missals of 1965 and 1967. I think the former began the change you describe before what is now the OF had even begun formulation.

 

[Chatter163]

The question is still not answered. Who ordered the change?

Yes, it was. There was no order that required the change. It started happening when other changes were made. The 1970 missal stated that altars should be constructed to allow Mass facing the people, but it did not absolutely require the change. The rubrics at least allow either way.

 

[floresco]

The question is still not answered. Who ordered the change?

"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:

A week or so ago, I was posting about a journal article in which the author, in response to Spirit of the Liturgy questioned whether Cardinal Ratzinger accepted Vatican II. I suspect this sort of thing was a factor in the change. It was never officially ordered, but not to do it brought one under suspicion. This was a time when “traditionalist” was almost synonymous with schismatic. I suspect many priests turned around the altars to show their loyalty to the new way of doing things, rather than a sense of conviction that it was actually better. (After all, it isn’t better )

 

[edwest2]

No, it was definitely not better. The Church was about to come under full attack from 1968 to 1973. The five year plan was to turn society upside down. From Pope Paul VI to Pope John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict, we are still seeing the bad fruit, but the Holy Spirit of God is moving among God’s people today.

Peace,
Ed