Vatican liturgy chief urges priests to celebrate Mass facing east

[deaconjohnO]

This is one of those areas where people in an office see things one way and people on “the streets” see it another.
.

Good Father I believe the people in “the streets” see things the way some people encourage them to believe. I can think of the example of our DRE who is a wonderful woman without nothing more than a certificate from her “training”. I remember a discussion I had with her regarding this very subject. She, although younger than I, was maligning some of the younger priests in our diocese who volunteered for training in the EF Mass. She was born long after the council and seemed to be parroting what she was hearing at her monthly diocesan meetings. This DRE, bless her to all ends, had not a clue what the EF Mass was she was simply strongly influenced by folks (usually over 60 years old) who constantly talked about how bad things were in the “olden days” . People are coaxed into thinking something is bad by their “leaders” and people of religious influence I think.

People call it “romanticizing” or taken back by the allure of the mysterious. Call it what you wan’t but people rally cannot inform their own opinion on something until they are taught exactly what it is and experience it themselves. I think the majority of the “the people in the streets” have never been remotely aware of an EF mass or ad orientem Novus Ordo Mass but they have strong opinions regarding it because someone “in the know” told them what to think without them realizing it.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Jim with all due respect you know well that the current Mass we Celebrate and the prior Tridentine Mass we celebrated likely has (had) little resemblance to what happened with the disciples. Are you suggesting that we all recline around a big table each sunday (and daily) and have a casual meal? I think we both well know the organic development of the liturgy. Why pick just the one thing (ad orientem in your case) to resist when you could choose just about everything we do at mass and Say, “They didn’t have organs (or guitars or pianos) at the last supper”, “they didn’t have a homily, or a penitential rite, or vestments or a etc etc etc.” I am sure you could pull some of that from Justin martyrs description but come on my friend.

Lastly I am sure that there will be little implementation of this. So if you don’t like it you could easily find a novus ordo that was celebrated versus populum. If that is the case you really shouldnt worry about those folks who admire and desire ad oreintem.

One of the things which is critical in the post conciliar reform is that upon which the Eucharist is confected should have the sign value of altar but it is also to have the sign value of table. That must not be lost. That liturgical implement should communicate altar and table…which is singularly not easy to achieve.

It also should properly be the focal point of the liturgical assembly.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I much prefer the language of Eucharistic Prayer 3 to Eucharistic Prayer 1 when it comes to evocation of sacrifice.

I agree good Father. I do have one question. Where is the Epiclesis in the Roman Canon? Is it directly before the institution narrative? I always feel like I am kneeling at the wrong time.

 

[deaconjohnO]

One of the things which is critical in the post conciliar reform is that upon which the Eucharist is confected should have the sign value of altar but it is also to have the sign value of table. That must not be lost. That liturgical implement should communicate altar and table…which is singularly not easy to achieve.

It also should properly be the focal point of the liturgical assembly.

I wrote a paper on this very subject in systematics. The Eucharist as both meal and sacrifice.

JP II Ecclesia de Eucharistia touches on this very subject (and I am sure in many other palces)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Good Father I believe the people in “the streets” see things the way some people encourage them to believe. I can think of the example of our DRE who is a wonderful woman without nothing more than a certificate from her “training”. I remember a discussion I had with her regarding this very subject. She, although younger than I, was maligning some of the younger priests in our diocese who volunteered for training in the EF Mass. She was born long after the council and seemed to be parroting what she was hearing at her monthly diocesan meetings. This DRE, bless her to all ends, had not a clue what the EF Mass was she was simply strongly influenced by folks (usually over 60 years old) who constantly talked about how bad things were in the “olden days” . People are coaxed into thinking something is bad by their “leaders” and people of religious influence I think.

People call it “romanticizing” or taken back by the allure of the mysterious. Call it what you wan’t but people rally cannot inform their own opinion on something until they are taught exactly what it is and experience it themselves. I think the majority of the “the people in the streets” have never been remotely aware of an EF mass or ad orientem Novus Ordo Mass but they have strong opinions regarding it because someone “in the know” told them what to think without them realizing it.

No, I can’t agree with the opinion you are trying to put forward. After all my years of being a priest and being a professor of liturgy…no. I do not find people to be that facile.

They very well may have inchoate reasons for what they prefer (either liking it or not liking it) that lacks the depth that theology would and could provide…but, no, I don’t think people are simply coaxed into thinking something by leaders or others. If anything, whether they are students or parishioners, they tend to take a contrarian position!

To use but one example…and I want to use it cautiously…I have worked with young people who have a real fascination with the vetus ordo and other young people who loathe the vetus ordo. None of them experienced it in their earlier lives…they’re too young. One group creates a romanticism around it that didn’t exist for those of us who knew it back when. The other group has no interest, even from a heritage or patrimony issue, in having anything to do with it.

There is no sense in which either group feels one way or another because of me – neither of those camps express my thought. But that is where they are and that needs to be recognised.

I think there are many things people do not have to experience to know that they do not wish to experience it…be it in liturgy or other things in real life.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I agree good Father. I do have one question. Where is the Epiclesis in the Roman Canon? Is it directly before the institution narrative? I always feel like I am kneeling at the wrong time.

It was changed. In the vetus ordo, it was at the Hanc igitur which is currently rendered in English as “Therefore Lord we pray”. In the novus ordo, it is at the Quam oblationem which is currently rendered in English as “Be pleased, O God, we pray.” The Quam oblationem is just before the institution narrative.

 

[deaconjohnO]

No, I can’t agree with the opinion you are trying to put forward. After all my years of being a priest and being a professor of liturgy…no. I do not find people to be that facile.

They very well may have inchoate reasons for what they prefer (either liking it or not liking it) that lacks the depth that theology would and could provide…but, no, I don’t think people are simply coaxed into thinking something by leaders or others. If anything, whether they are students or parishioners, they tend to take a contrarian position!

To use but one example…and I want to use it cautiously…I have worked with young people who have a real fascination with the vetus ordo and other young people who loathe the vetus ordo. None of them experienced it in their earlier lives…they’re too young. One group creates a romanticism around it that didn’t exist for those of us who knew it back when. The other group has no interest, even from a heritage or patrimony issue, in having anything to do with it.

There is no sense in which either group feels one way or another because of me – neither of those camps express my thought. But that is where they are and that needs to be recognised.

I think there are many things people do not have to experience to know that they do not wish to experience it…be it in liturgy or other things in real life.

I see your point and have an example of myself to support it. I wanted to experience the EF so I went (and slipped in the back pew). I was so far back I simply couldn’t hear a thing (not that it really mattered as I don’t know latin). I felt disconnected a bit and decided good for these folks if they want to. But not for me. My example of the DRE may have been off a bit, but I certainly refuse to condemn practices that that the “director of liturgy” of the entire church encourages. I am a bit off subject and wandering here so I will now stop.

 

[deaconjohnO]

It was changed. In the vetus ordo, it was at the Hanc igitur which is currently rendered in English as “Therefore Lord we pray”. In the novus ordo, it is at the Quam oblationem which is currently rendered in English as “Be pleased, O God, we pray.” The Quam oblationem is just before the institution narrative.

Ok great thank you. I am sure you wonder why a deacon would ask but problem is I have never been given a straight answer. I now consider myself informed.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Brendan:

First, under Canon 16, the CDWDS, as the legislator of the Roman Missal, is the competent authority to interpret the law. Hence why the CDWDS was the object of the appeal, NOT the Congregation for Religious, which would have been the case if the objection was in regards to a bishop’s authority over a religious. order

And note that the CDWDS indicated that Bishop Foley’s decree was a violation of the "ius commune " of the liturgical law. That is a technical canon law term, meaning that Bishop Foley’s decree was a violation of the common understanding of the law, that his decree was a violation of the basic norms of liturgical law…

Finally, under SC 21, the authority to regulate the Liturgy resides with the Holy See, and, if the laws allow, then upon the local Bishop.

The determination on if a local ordinary has power to regulate an element of the liturgy does not reside with the Ordinary alone, but with the CDWDS. The CDWDS, again per Canon 16, is the competent authority to determine if an act is in accord with the Roman Missal or not. Since the local bishop cannot, under his own authority, abrogate the Missal, he would be obligated, under obedience, to follow the directives of the CDWDS.

When Pope Benedict wrote to the world’s bishops in 2007, it is interesting how he formulated his thought. I think it is much more in keeping with the actual praxis that I have lived and experienced. The part I put in bold is the bit every bishop I worked with got – and that was where they laid the emphasis. I am not saying that they were not, in fact, deferential to the Holy See or the dicastery…they were. But they also had a great estimation of their own prerogatives as supreme moderator of the liturgy in their diocese.
*In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.*

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Ok great thank you. I am sure you wonder why a deacon would ask but problem is I have never been given a straight answer. I now consider myself informed.

Don’t worry, Deacon. I used to have bishops that asked me questions. I have answered a lot of questions over the decades.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I see your point and have an example of myself to support it. I wanted to experience the EF so I went (and slipped in the back pew). I was so far back I simply couldn’t hear a thing (not that it really mattered as I don’t know latin). I felt disconnected a bit and decided good for these folks if they want to. But not for me. My example of the DRE may have been off a bit, but I certainly refuse to condemn practices that that the “director of liturgy” of the entire church encourages. I am a bit off subject and wandering here so I will now stop.

If it wasn’t a dialogue Mass, you would not have heard that much more in the front pew than in the back pew.

I celebrated the vetus ordo Mass…the last time was a long time ago for a group who had petitioned for it under the old provisions for the indult. I was not keen on it but the bishop said, with justification, that I was the best one of those available to do it – so I did. For as long as he left me with that obedience. The moment he lifted it, however, I gave him back the indult (it was conveyed in writing) as I did not want it and I have never celebrated that Mass since and I have no desire to whatsoever.

I celebrate the novus ordo in Latin from time to time; I used to teach Latin. I am, however, ever so grateful for liturgical reform. The novus ordo, for me, is a tremendous gift from Heaven.

 

[edwest2]

The EF and OF are equally valid. I grew up with the Latin Mass. I understood what the words meant. Missals were available with the Latin and English on the same page.

Best,
Ed

 

[ProVobis]

The EF and OF are equally valid. I grew up with the Latin Mass. I understood what the words meant. Missals were available with the Latin and English on the same page.

I don’t think it’s just a matter of understanding what the words mean. There are plenty of actions in the EF (bows, crosses, low tones, genuflections, etc.) which are intended to increase the contemplative prayer value of the liturgy as well. I believe they should be observed as much as possible.

 

[detoutcoeur]

I don’t think it’s just a matter of understanding what the words mean. There are plenty of actions in the EF (bows, crosses, low tones, genuflections, etc.) which are intended to increase the contemplative prayer value of the liturgy as well. I believe they should be observed as much as possible.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t think it’s just a matter of understanding what the words mean. There are plenty of actions in the EF (bows, crosses, low tones, genuflections, etc.) which are intended to increase the contemplative prayer value of the liturgy as well. I believe they should be observed as much as possible.

In the OF as well.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think it’s just a matter of understanding what the words mean. There are plenty of actions in the EF (bows, crosses, low tones, genuflections, etc.) which are intended to increase the contemplative prayer value of the liturgy as well. I believe they should be observed as much as possible.

I know. Reverence and sacredness should be reflected in all these ways. Our thoughts need to be focused on all aspects of the Mass.

Best,
Ed

 

[jeff123816]

“For us, the light is Jesus Christ. All the Church is oriented, facing East, toward Christ: ad Dominum. A Church closed in on herself in a circle will have lost her reason for being. For to be herself, the Church must live facing God…” --Cardinal Sarah

It’s been a long time since I’ve attended an EF or ad orientem Mass. But thinking back on the old Mass, it seems to me that it was not so much the orientation of the priest which mattered, but the orientation of the mind. The mind was oriented to the sacrifice being offered at the altar. This orientation was implicit at the beginning of Mass in the prayers at the foot of the altar, the colloquy between priest and servers, beginning like this:

P: “I will go up unto the altar of God.”
S. “To God who gives joy to my youth.”

Priest and server then alternated in praying a psalm, reciting the Confiteor, and other prayers, and ending with the priest ascending the steps to the altar. It focused the mind on the altar of God where the Eucharist was to be accomplished. That, I think, is the orientation that needs to be restored.

 

[jeff123816]

“For us, the light is Jesus Christ. All the Church is oriented, facing East, toward Christ: ad Dominum. A Church closed in on herself in a circle will have lost her reason for being. For to be herself, the Church must live facing God…” --Cardinal Sarah

It’s been a long time since I’ve attended an EF or ad orientem Mass. But thinking back on the old Mass, it seems to me that it was not so much the orientation of the priest which mattered, but the orientation of the mind. The mind was oriented to the sacrifice being offered at the altar. This orientation was implicit at the beginning of Mass in the prayers at the foot of the altar, the colloquy between priest and servers, beginning like this:

P: “I will go up unto the altar of God.”
S. “To God who gives joy to my youth.”

Priest and server then alternated in praying a psalm, reciting the Confiteor, and other prayers, and ending with the priest ascending the steps to the altar. It focused the mind on the altar of God where the Eucharist was to be accomplished. That, I think, is the orientation that needs to be restored.

I agree with this. We can get sidetracked with phrases like “liturgical east” and “the priest’s back to the people.” I believe that Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict lament loss of the vertical aspect of our liturgies. In an attempt to increase the horizontal, we went too far the other way. A return to a priestly orientation which indicates conversation with God (and as the priest serves as mediator between the faithful and God - this is what persona Christi means) would do a lot to remedy this because it is ultimately our hearts that need to be lifted to God. Our Lord Himself gave us an example of this. How many times did He “lift his eyes to heaven” when addressing the father. Even in the presence of his apostles, he looked to heaven, not to them, as he conversed with his Father. How much more lowly are we when addressing the almighty? I do not mean to imply that mass facing the people is somehow wrong or invalid. I am quite sure that God does not care about the priest’s orientation. The difference is what such an orientation does to us, to our hearts. When I see our priest turn towards the tabernacle or crucifix, I am led to participate interiorly in the prayers that he is speaking. I imagine the apostles did the same as Our Lord “lifting His eyes to heaven” petitioned the Father for them during his High Priestly prayer (John 17:1). It is true that God is present in the souls of each of us. In most of his public life, Our Lord honored that presence with acts of love to done to those individuals he encountered out in the world. I say individuals, not humanity as a general term. We are called to love our neighbor, not the nebulous “everyone.” But His prayer was always interior, even in a congregational setting. Thus, we should emulate Him.