K
kdbueno
Guest
I understand your facts. But I do believe you support the issue, in a moral sense.
Vatican liturgy chief urges priests to celebrate Mass facing east
- Status
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I can see it both ways but prefer to see what the priest is doing and hear him clearly.
O
OraLabora
Guest
This is something made very clear in the Rule of St. Benedict.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I understand that, but to me these sorts of contortions diminish the symbolism of facing East. It’s like a Muslim facing which ever direction is convenient and saying he’s facing Mecca.
In the abbey where I worship most of the time, the church really does face east, a common feature of Benedictine abbeys. When the sun rises behind the altar, there is no question that I am looking East. There is no tabernacle on the altar, the tabernacle, in Benedictine manner, is in a (very beautiful) side chapel. The monks concelebrate, in a semi-circle around the altar, which is at the back of the sanctuary. Between the altar and the nave are the monks’ choir stalls. If God present in the sacrament is “liturgical east” then the priests, facing the choir stalls and nave, are facing liturgical east, and at the same time are facing their community and the assembled faithful. And the community and faithful are also facing the altar and the consecrated Eucharist on the altar and seeing the priests. In an arrangement like this, the notion of everyone facing the same direction is a bit ridiculous. You’d have about 15 monks in a semi-circle completely hiding the altar from view for anyone else.
So I frankly see these east vs. people discussions as a bit silly, and a complete distraction from the real focus, God made present amont us. FWIW, the Mass is very reverent, with Latin Gregorian chant (+Greek) for the Propers and Ordinary, and French plainchant for the rest, incense, processions, bells, the works, all done beautifully and flowingly.
As you can probably imagine, in such an environment the direction that the priests face is just about the last thing on my mind.
F
Fuerza
Guest
If you see the discussion as silly and irrelevant then it shouldn’t matter to you that it is of interest to other people, some of whom see it as an important issue (including the Cardinal). Not everyone has access to a Mass as you describe, and these “silly” matters become all the more crucial.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I don’t see how the orientation of the priest can salvage an otherwise sloppy liturgy, and I do agree there is a lot of sloppy liturgy out there, even many that nominally follow the rubrics.
It would be far more beneficial in my opinion, to work on taking the rough edges out of the liturgy (better music, better attention to detail in particular the rubrics, smoother flow).
That is of interest to others is their business. I am merely expressing my opinion, which it is my right to do here.
O
otjm
Guest
I understand that there are people who prefer the Cardinal’s suggestion.
On the the hand, it amuses me to see estimates of how many young people prefer it. While I have not been to and through the east coast, from the Midwest to the west I have yet to see one parish using it. Given that there are about 17,300 parishes in the US, and excluding about 450 which have the EF, that leaves roughly 16,850 parishes celebrating the OF; and I would be surprised if 1% of them have the OF as the Cardinal describes.
That makes it a bit hard to find even a minuscule number of young people who have even seen it, other than perhaps on YouTube.
But enthusiasm continues to skew reality.
And while I do not see Masses with goofy rubrics and errors abounding (and I cannot speak for Canada), Ora Labora is right - which way the priest faces is not going to dictate how reverently the Mass is performed.
On the the hand, it amuses me to see estimates of how many young people prefer it. While I have not been to and through the east coast, from the Midwest to the west I have yet to see one parish using it. Given that there are about 17,300 parishes in the US, and excluding about 450 which have the EF, that leaves roughly 16,850 parishes celebrating the OF; and I would be surprised if 1% of them have the OF as the Cardinal describes.
That makes it a bit hard to find even a minuscule number of young people who have even seen it, other than perhaps on YouTube.
But enthusiasm continues to skew reality.
And while I do not see Masses with goofy rubrics and errors abounding (and I cannot speak for Canada), Ora Labora is right - which way the priest faces is not going to dictate how reverently the Mass is performed.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I haven’t been to very many Masses in English Canada. I live in the French part of the country, and while Mass is offered here in English, it is often by a francophone priest with a heavy accent. So I will attend if necessary for my obligation and it’s the only Mass I can make it to but otherwise I attend in a French parish, or more often, in the local abbey (French/Latin mix).
I’ve been to few English Masses in Ontario and British Columbia and all were fine. It’s my experience though, that culturally, anglophones tend to be the kind to obey rules, and francophones, to test their limits. It’s been said that our speed limits in Quebec are a suggestion…
So yes I’ve seen some fairly sloppy liturgies… missing penitential rites, insipid music, rushing to get it all done in 55 minutes, missing vestments, ad-libbed prayers replacing the official ones, or changing the words, and I could go on. Most of the Masses are OK, but enough are not that it’s hard not to notice.
On the other hand I used to go to a simple spoken 7 am Mass at the crypt church of St. Joseph’s Oratory about once a week when I worked in the city, some years ago. The quiet spoken liturgy was reverent, and its simplicity and barrenness appealed to my monastic sensitivities. In winter, I would enter the church in the dark, and come out at dawn with the city waking at my feet (the Oratory is near the top of Mount Royal, smack in the center of Montreal). It was a very inspiring way to start the day, and I prefer this kind of Mass to one with poor music.
Mind you these are my feelings. The liturgy isn’t about me, but I do like that it at least follow the rubrics and not omit important parts.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
If I may add my agreement.
I’m a priest of many years. I’ve offered Mass in the vetus ordo and the novus ordo…with the altar ad absidem as well as versus populum. I’ve offered Mass in churches built in a semi-circle & in the round…with the altar in the architectural center of the church and in configurations with people at 360 degrees. I’ve yet to see a liturgical positioning that I’ve not found myself in…either as a celebrant or a concelebrant or a master of ceremonies…so I have practical experience to draw upon
To Fuerza: as a priest, I do find aspects of the discussion – and most especially the way it is being discussed and the conclusions that are being extrapolated from it – as “silly” and also “irrelevant.” Indeed that is of interest to me as a retired professor of liturgy & sacraments precisely because many of both said premises and conclusions are not solidly grounded in either truth or reality. That is critical
In the United States & Canada, I had occasion to offer Mass at altars not facing the people. Granted, they were exceptional instances as it is evidently unusual in North America
A cloistered convent chapel comes to mind where the Sisters were behind the grill and would have been looking at the altar from the side in whatever possible configuration in attempting a post-conciliar modification. An altar that faced “the people” (that is externs coming into the public part of their monastery’s chapel) would have not changed that orientation: the Sisters would have been looking at my right side instead of my left side, since their part of the chapel was within the monastic enclosure and the whole purpose of the chapel was after all for them; moving the altar made no sense. The architecture simply wouldn’t allow any other disposition
I once celebrated Mass at the old high altar in the historic chapel of Notre Dame du Cap in Quebec. It was a private Mass and no one was present. I think it may have even been outside the chapel’s normal opening hours and so my orientation was irrelevant; there was no one else there. Otherwise, celebrations in North America as I remember rarely admitted of any departure from a norm of Mass celebrated versus populum
That is not the case in Europe. We have chapels & churches where the architecture did not lend itself readily to having a versus populum celebration because a freestanding altar could not be erected or otherwise made no sense. Thus, on a given Sunday, I’ve gone from celebrating a Mass in a parish with a freestanding altar and offered the Mass oriented versus populum to offer a second Mass in a chapel where the orientation of the altar was ad absidem to then offering a third Mass with a versus populum orientation
The second Mass did not have…neither for me nor those assisting…a remarkably different air about it
It is important to point out that the rubrics prescribe where it is ideal for me to be at each part of the Mass. The introductory rite concluding with the opening oration is to occur at the Presider’s Chair, all else being equal. It would require an alteration of rubrics for this to occur preferentially at the altar – there is a provision now that it can be done but it is not the favoured option. I do it when I offer Mass privately as one retired…just as I use an altar that does not face the people since there are no people
The heart of the matter transcends which direction the altar is facing. The novus ordo can be said not facing the people just as the vetus ordo can actually be said (and was at times said before the Council) facing the people
What troubles me is there are people who seem to think that the direction that the priest is facing during the anaphora has profound impact on the ambience of the liturgy. I’ve certainly not found that to be true
More troubling to me is the concept of a “symbolic East”. East does have a significance in our patrimony…that is unquestionable and from early days. However, it was honestly not something pervasive in the conscious thought of the ordinary people of my youth – that is to say neither before the council nor after the council. The concept that we were so aware of facing “a liturgical east” then and that has been lost is not true
Saying that, no matter what the actual physical orientation of the church or chapel building may be, we are all going to pretend that the apse is the east (or that the narthex is the east for that matter) is simply bizarre to me. The apse is either in the east or it isn’t
If we want to say that all altars should henceforth be oriented to the east, that can be enacted in law…but creating a pretense that is foreign to verifiable reality – to my perspective as a professor as well as a priest – is to go against one of the most important witnesses that the Church is staking today: truth is an objective reality; it is not subjective nor is it relative
East is a directional absolute, as every compass will attest. I “identify” this direction as East or, just as bad, “this is my east even if it is not your east – and it is okay that your east and my east are not the same or even mean the same thing” is really rather counter-intuitive and counter-productive
E
exnihilo
Guest
Conservative typically means not wanting to change. I know what you intend by conservative but I also don’t think it isn’t necessarily surprising that conservatives don’t like change. An example concerning the new translation helps shed light on the complexities of this. I know someone who thought the change to ‘and with your spirit’ was a hippie 60s change. I understand why they’d think that. But it really is a more faithful translation of et cum spiritu tuo.
P
ProVobis
Guest
St. John Cantius does it too, I believe. But then they still have the high altar as well.
They have two EF, Latin OF, and English OF.
K
kdbueno
Guest
Liturgy is a very precise meaning of the Gospel. But is supposes for us an orientation of hope.
P
ProVobis
Guest
On a broader level, I see a whole movement towards more transparency in general. This has become especially true in business dealings, central bank actions, government debates and processes, etc. People become suspecting when things remain hidden. But that doesn’t mean seeing everything will make people understand it better.
That said, I’d like to hear commenter’s view on the sociological impact in facing the people. He’s more scholarly in sociology than I am.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I suspect it may be difficult to tease out the impact of versus populum amid all the background noise of all the other changes that occurred starting in the '60s.On a broader level, I see a whole movement towards more transparency in general. This has become especially true in business dealings, central bank actions, government debates and processes, etc. People become suspecting when things remain hidden. But that doesn’t mean seeing everything will make people understand it better.
That said, I’d like to hear commenter’s view on the sociological impact in facing the people. He’s more scholarly in sociology than I am.
The only thing I can say is this: people way above my pay grade discerned that this option was to be permitted and that any new altars constructed be allowed to accommodate this option. It would seem to me then, that they discerned sufficient pastoral need to offer it. And as has been pointed out, it’s not as if the Mass had never been celebrated versus populum before the Council.
They must have struck a nerve because both the clergy and the people seem to have not only adapted to the change, but they embrace it, prefer it, and become cranky when attempts are made to go back to ad orientem.
It’s all find and good for amateur liturgists like ourselves (and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what we are) to say one prefers facing “liturgical East”, but to complain, moan and lament about the change to celebration versus populum in most places, is to me a waste of precious energy and is whistling in the wind. It’s like trying to fit 300 more angels on the head of a pin… Roma locuta est, causa finita est, until Rome decides to rule otherwise, something that does not seem to be in the immediate future.
I believe, like Fr. Ruggero (a man far more eminently qualified to comment than most here) that it is meaningless for a Church seeking absolute Truth to have constructed this artifice of symbolism that is “liturgical East” for places that do not face actual East: either it is East, or it isn’t East, and twisting logic into some concept like “liturgical East” seems like it was made to win arguments or justify a practice and not to represent true symbolism that the East really does carry for Christians (true enough that monastic conventual chapels are all built facing geographical East). If “liturgical East” is meant to be the direction of the Risen Christ, then once the Eucharist is confected on the altar, any direction facing the ciborium and calice are “liturgical East”, because that is where the Risen Christ is, sacramentally, present among us. You could stand to the side, to the rear or to the front, as long as you are facing the consecrated Eucharist you are facing the Risen Christ. Which is exactly what happens when the monks concelebrate. Of the 15 or so that do (plus visiting priests), those on the peripheries of the semi-circle are actually facing the Eucharist from the sides of the altar.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s worth noting since the pre-Vatican II Mass has much more detail (bows, crosses, etc.) than the new Mass. It is definitely more visual than verbal. It would make sense that people not understanding Latin and not hearing much would want to “see” what’s going on.
I myself don’t see the point of ad orientem English Masses if this will cause major distractions, which it appears would happen on a massive scale.
D
deaconjohnO
Guest
The article from Cardinal Sarah comes with some authority. He is prefect for Divine Worship. A very good part of my own formation (which required Masters in Theology) covered liturgy. I remember one of our professors discussing this very topic.
I’m not quite sure why facing “liturgical east” during the Liturgy of the Eucharist would be such a bad thing. Additionally the penitential act and the profession of faith could be recited facing east. I’m not quite sure why people would notice the orientation of the priest during the penitential and profession. We are, after all, directing our words to the Almighty when we recite these parts of the mass.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Precisely. It is during the Eucharistic Prayer where the direction of the priest MAY matter.
F
Fuerza
Guest
Which is exactly the point that I was trying to make. I have no problem with most of the Mass facing the people, but I think the symbolism of " facing God" together with the people during the Eucharistic Prayer (especially the Canon, even in its abbreviated version) is pretty powerful.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Facing the people. the priest is facing God.
God dwells in each one of us, and is omnipresent.
Jim
- Status