Vatican liturgy chief urges priests to celebrate Mass facing east

[Fuerza]

Fact is, Jesus would not have had his back facing the Apostles, which is the point being made.

Jim

Correct. Due to the arrangement of the table, He would not have had His back to them, but they still would have been facing the same direction. If we are to base the Mass on exactly how Christ acted, we would need to have really long tables in churches so that everyone could sit next to each other. Along a similar line of thought, Christ worshiped in Hebrew, which was mainly a liturgical language and not spoken in casual conversation (it would not be revived and restored as the vernacular language of the Jews of Israel until at least the 19th century). Just a thought…

 

[Fuerza]

They worship God who is in their presence, not out in the cosmos.

Jim

I would say that God is simultaneously in their presence as well as in the cosmos, being omnipresent and all. However by this logic, in which the priest’s facing the same direction as the people signifies that God is out in the cosmos, one would have to conclude that the priest’s facing the people means that God is in the back of the church. In this case, the people should turn around.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Correct. Due to the arrangement of the table, He would not have had His back to them, but they still would have been facing the same direction. If we are to base the Mass on exactly how Christ acted, we would need to have really long tables in churches so that everyone could sit next to each other. Along a similar line of thought, Christ worshiped in Hebrew, which was mainly a liturgical language and not spoken in casual conversation (it would not be revived and restored as the vernacular language of the Jews of Israel until at least the 19th century). Just a thought…

If you use Da Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper, Jesus and the Apostles are facing the same direction.

If you use the historical context, they were probably reclining around a U-shaped table with Jesus at the center, and the Apostles facing each other on both sides, but looking at Jesus.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I would say that God is simultaneously in their presence as well as in the cosmos, being omnipresent and all. However by this logic, in which the priest’s facing the same direction as the people signifies that God is out in the cosmos, one would have to conclude that the priest’s facing the people means that God is in the back of the church. In this case, the people should turn around.

God is omnipresent, but the point is that until Vatican II, God was mostly thought of as out in the Cosmos, not dwelling within us and present among the people attending Mass.

Jim

 

[otjm]

I would say that God is simultaneously in their presence as well as in the cosmos, being omnipresent and all. However by this logic, in which the priest’s facing the same direction as the people signifies that God is out in the cosmos, one would have to conclude that the priest’s facing the people means that God is in the back of the church. In this case, the people should turn around.

Well, actually no, everyone is facing where Christ will soon be present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - on the altar.

Which brings up another point, and that is the insistence of having the tabernacle against the wall behind the altar.

Tabernacles basically didn’t exist until somewhere around the 9th century, and didn’t get into the church proper until the 10th. If one looks at the centuries old cathedrals in Europe, one will find that the tabernacle was off to the side or in a side chapel.

That is still a matter that people get into a dust-up about, and I don’t want to derail the thread; but the issue of the focus on the altar instead of the tabernacle behind the altar is resolved if the tabernacle is off in a chapel, or on a side altar.

 

[otjm]

Along a similar line of thought, Christ worshiped in Hebrew, which was mainly a liturgical language and not spoken in casual conversation (it would not be revived and restored as the vernacular language of the Jews of Israel until at least the 19th century). Just a thought…

So are you saying that the average Jew at the time of Christ did not know Hebrew - even thought hat was used weekly in the synagogues?

Most people have not been able to speak or read Latin for what appear to be centuries.

Just another thought.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

If you suggest to our Eastern Brethren that their priests should face the people when offering the holy sacrifice, they will collapse with laughter…the idea would beyond ludicrous from an Eastern mindset. (As it was from a Latin mindset until a few decades ago).
Of course the priest does face us at certain points during the liturgy in any tradition…when he is speaking to US on God’s behalf…but he turns towards the Lord when he speaks to the Lord on our behalf. Facing the people while offering a sacrifice on our behalf to the Lord is just beyond the realm of common sense.

The difference from the Orthodox perspective is that, while it is certainly true that the celebrant at times faces the people to represent God to them, during the “Canon” (the Eucharistic prayers) the priest is representing himself and the people in praying to God, specifically the Father. Unlike in the west, the point at which the Gifts become the body and blood of Christ is not defined as the “words of consecration”, but in the entire litany of prayers culminating in the Epiclesis (“calling down”) to the Holy Spirit. Even when he is saying Christ’s words at the Last Supper, the priest is recalling what Christ said, and is not acting “in the place of Christ” vis a vis the congregation. Thus, the “changing” of the Gifts is the action of the Holy Spirit, not of the priest acting as Christ. At least, that is my understanding.

 

[Brendan]

If you use the historical context, they were probably reclining around a U-shaped table with Jesus at the center, and the Apostles facing each other on both sides, but looking at Jesus.

Jim

The historical context would be Christ at the lower left arm of the U, not in it’s center. That was the position of honor, as it gives a right handed person more room to recline, as his feet would be sticking away from the table.

See the Ravenna mosic again and note where Christ is placed.

 

[Fuerza]

So are you saying that the average Jew at the time of Christ did not know Hebrew - even thought hat was used weekly in the synagogues?

Most people have not been able to speak or read Latin for what appear to be centuries.

Just another thought.

It was largely tongue in cheek, given the tenor of some of the comments here. My point was that a “dead” liturgical language was used. Although it’s a topic for a different thread, I would contend that study of Latin is quite a bit more common than you imply, and there is certainly not a single Catholic on this Earth who could not learn at least some of the Latin Ordinary in a very short time.

 

[Fuerza]

Well, actually no, everyone is facing where Christ will soon be present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - on the altar.

Which brings up another point, and that is the insistence of having the tabernacle against the wall behind the altar.

Tabernacles basically didn’t exist until somewhere around the 9th century, and didn’t get into the church proper until the 10th. If one looks at the centuries old cathedrals in Europe, one will find that the tabernacle was off to the side or in a side chapel.

That is still a matter that people get into a dust-up about, and I don’t want to derail the thread; but the issue of the focus on the altar instead of the tabernacle behind the altar is resolved if the tabernacle is off in a chapel, or on a side altar.

I don’t recall bringing up the position of the tabernacle.

 

[otjm]

It was largely tongue in cheek, given the tenor of some of the comments here. My point was that a “dead” liturgical language was used. Although it’s a topic for a different thread, I would contend that study of Latin is quite a bit more common than you imply, and there is certainly not a single Catholic on this Earth who could not learn at least some of the Latin Ordinary in a very short time.

If "learn at least some Latin "simply means to memorize some phrases, you are correct.

However, after studying Latin in both high school and college, that is not what I call “learning Latin”. It is learning to parrot phrases, the meaning of which you know, but which you could not change in the least; nor if given a change, be able to make out what that change was.

Latin may be making some come back in high school and college, but it is still a minority of language students who will take it.

I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of using some Latin in the Mass; after 70 years I can probably get along just about as well as anybody who has not studied it for 50 years. The lack of the use of it in the OF does not bother me; neither am I bothered should it be used.

As to Hebrew being a dead language at the time of Christ, I will leave that for scholars who pick over the bones of carcasses; but my guess is that the regular weekly use of it in a religious setting left most of those in Israel at the time knowing what was said, and not needing it translated for them, nor needing to have a papyrus of a the readings in Aramaic.

 

[otjm]

I don’t recall bringing up the position of the tabernacle.

“which brings up another point” is normally a lead-in to another aspect of the conversation.

You didn’t bring it up; I did; and it is ultimately a subset of the conversation of the thread.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The historical context would be Christ at the lower left arm of the U, not in it’s center. That was the position of honor, as it gives a right handed person more room to recline, as his feet would be sticking away from the table.

See the Ravenna mosic again and note where Christ is placed.

And its already be shown why that interpretation would’ve been historically incorrect. The Apostles would not have sat behind Jesus.

Years back there was a couple on EWTN, who are archaeologist who are also experts on the Shroud of Turin. They have strong evidence to suggest that this was a table cloth used at the Last Supper, and the showed where there are food stains on the cloth indicating that it was probably used as a table cloth before it was used as a shroud. Anyway, it would have Jesus sitting at the center, and the cloth would’ve been for a traditional table as shown in Da Vinci’s Last Supper.

But the Shroud of Turin has not been proven to be the burial cloth of Jesus, so its still speculation.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

They worship God who is in their presence, not out in the cosmos.

Interesting comment. It seems like in the Old Testament sacrifices were offered in the Holy of Holies, where no one except for the high priest was allowed to enter.

OTOH, I noticed in the movie “The Story of Ruth” young girls were slain as a sacrifice on an altar facing the crowd.

So I would say, take your pick.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Interesting comment. It seems like in the Old Testament sacrifices were offered in the Holy of Holies, where no one except for the high priest was allowed to enter.

OTOH, I noticed in the movie “The Story of Ruth” young girls were slain as a sacrifice on an altar facing the crowd.

So I would say, take your pick.

I would say, read the New Testament and how Jesus taught differently than what the tribal Hebrews of the OT thought about God.

Also, be sure to include the Epistles, where St Paul and the Apostles teach what Jesus revealed to them, and hence, to us.

Jim

 

[Fuerza]

If "learn at least some Latin "simply means to memorize some phrases, you are correct.

However, after studying Latin in both high school and college, that is not what I call “learning Latin”. It is learning to parrot phrases, the meaning of which you know, but which you could not change in the least; nor if given a change, be able to make out what that change was.

Latin may be making some come back in high school and college, but it is still a minority of language students who will take it.

I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of using some Latin in the Mass; after 70 years I can probably get along just about as well as anybody who has not studied it for 50 years. The lack of the use of it in the OF does not bother me; neither am I bothered should it be used.

As to Hebrew being a dead language at the time of Christ, I will leave that for scholars who pick over the bones of carcasses; but my guess is that the regular weekly use of it in a religious setting left most of those in Israel at the time knowing what was said, and not needing it translated for them, nor needing to have a papyrus of a the readings in Aramaic.

And it was used weekly in religious services for Catholics. What was the difference? Do you really contend that no one could understand the Latin in the past few centuries, even though it was still largely being taught in schools at the time. Maybe there were some, even a lot, who couldn’t, but no one?

Also, I am not a proponent of making the OF completely Latin, but I think that learning and using a few phrases is well within the reach of most people. It would go a long way in preserving our heritage.

 

[pnewton]

Jesus was the God of the Hebrews of the Old Testament. It is a dangerous error to make a distinction between the God of the NT and the God of the OT. Likewise, we should avoid using movies a source for anything other than entertainment.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jesus was the God of the Hebrews of the Old Testament. It is a dangerous error to make a distinction between the God of the NT and the God of the OT. Likewise, we should avoid using movies a source for anything other than entertainment.

But the understanding of God of the Old Testament is different than that when Christ was revealed.

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets;
in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe Hebrews 1:1

Jim

 

[OraLabora]

And it was used weekly in religious services for Catholics. What was the difference? Do you really contend that no one could understand the Latin in the past few centuries, even though it was still largely being taught in schools at the time. Maybe there were some, even a lot, who couldn’t, but no one?

Also, I am not a proponent of making the OF completely Latin, but I think that learning and using a few phrases is well within the reach of most people. It would go a long way in preserving our heritage.

If we can’t have Latin, I’d settle for vernacular plainchant. I can manage the Latin; I sing in a Gregorian schola (entirely in the OF), but some hate it. Plainchant at least preserves a part of that heritage. The abbey where I normally go to Mass does mix both; the Propers and Ordinary are in Gregorian chant and Latin (+ Greek for the Kyrie and the Improperes on Good Friday), but the rest is French plainchant in Gregorian style. It makes for a very nice mix.

There are projects in the US like Simple English Propers in plainchant. I’ve seen a local Cistercian abbey use French plainchant for the Propers.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If we can’t have Latin, I’d settle for vernacular plainchant. I can manage the Latin; I sing in a Gregorian schola (entirely in the OF), but some hate it. Plainchant at least preserves a part of that heritage. The abbey where I normally go to Mass does mix both; the Propers and Ordinary are in Gregorian chant and Latin (+ Greek for the Kyrie and the Improperes on Good Friday), but the rest is French plainchant in Gregorian style. It makes for a very nice mix.

There are projects in the US like Simple English Propers in plainchant. I’ve seen a local Cistercian abbey use French plainchant for the Propers.

The Trappists Monastery where I go, translated their chant from Latin into English. Its beautiful.

Jim