Vatican squelches rumors of new rules on Mass facing east

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicSooner said:
your focus shouldn’t even be on the priest during the parts of the mass that ad orientem would affect.

This movement isn’t going to revert everythign back to where it was pre vatican 2
Click to expand...
I accept your preference, but kindly don’t seek to enlighten me on what I should and should not focus on during my time at mass. I respect your opinion but don’t be surprised if I am less than delighted about your suggestions. I am also schooled enough in my religion to understand what facing liturgical east means in effect at mass
 
From the book, The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

The Spirit of the Liturgy:
Code: 
"The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall;” it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people.” . . . For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord.” . . . They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us."
Ed
 
ProVobis said:
There is no infallibility in translations. But you know that.
Click to expand...
The issue is not infallibility. Very little in Catholic teaching is infallible, but you know that. The issue is whether it is authoritative.
 
TMC said:
The issue is not infallibility. Very little in Catholic teaching is infallible, but you know that.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t.
The issue is whether it is authoritative.
Click to expand...
I believe it’s been pointed out numerous times the Latin is authoritative. Translations from the Latin are done for convenience only. Shouldn’t be used as a reliable reference for arguments.
 
PatrickKennedy said:
I accept your preference, but kindly don’t seek to enlighten me on what I should and should not focus on during my time at mass. I respect your opinion but don’t be surprised if I am less than delighted about your suggestions. I am also schooled enough in my religion to understand what facing liturgical east means in effect at mass
Click to expand...
fair enough
 
BTW, the parish I go to daily mass at switched to ad orientem this week. Today was my first time to attend and it was great! Very little difference except for the direction he was facing during the eucharistic prayers.

I don’t htink anybody was offended with his back being towards them…
 
Here’s my opinion. If the tabernacle has been removed from the sanctuary and placed in a side chapel, the idea of “facing liturgical East” to face Jesus in the tabernacle makes no sense whatsoever. We don’t worship the rising Sun, we worship Jesus. If anything, our eyes should be lifted to Heaven. Secondly, during the consecration, if one truly believes in the Real Presence, no matter how one’s orientation, as long as one is facing the altar, one is looking at Jesus. As long as the words of consecration are spoken by a man who has received the presbyterate Order over bread and wine, the Mass is valid. Period. For some people, the ad orientum position holds special significance and aids in their faith life. But, in reality, the most important thing on Pope Francis’s mind (and the minds of Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II before him) has been the New Evangelization. There’s a reason why all three of these Popes (along with Bl. Paul VI) have celebrated all of their public Masses versus populum. And if versus populum is good enough for the Popes, then it’s good enough for me. If we went back to ad orientum being the norm, it wouldn’t bother me, either (I’ve sometimes attended weekly Mass at a small chapel where the only possible orientation is ad orientum - and yes, the chapel does face East). But I think we have a whole lot of bigger problems to worry about than the direction the priest faces during consecration.
 
powerofk said:
Here’s my opinion. If the tabernacle has been removed from the sanctuary and placed in a side chapel, the idea of “facing liturgical East” to face Jesus in the tabernacle makes no sense whatsoever. We don’t worship the rising Sun, we worship Jesus. If anything, our eyes should be lifted to Heaven. Secondly, during the consecration, if one truly believes in the Real Presence, no matter how one’s orientation, as long as one is facing the altar, one is looking at Jesus. As long as the words of consecration are spoken by a man who has received the presbyterate Order over bread and wine, the Mass is valid. Period. For some people, the ad orientum position holds special significance and aids in their faith life. But, in reality, the most important thing on Pope Francis’s mind (and the minds of Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II before him) has been the New Evangelization. There’s a reason why all three of these Popes (along with Bl. Paul VI) have celebrated all of their public Masses versus populum. And if versus populum is good enough for the Popes, then it’s good enough for me. If we went back to ad orientum being the norm, it wouldn’t bother me, either (I’ve sometimes attended weekly Mass at a small chapel where the only possible orientation is ad orientum - and yes, the chapel does face East). But I think we have a whole lot of bigger problems to worry about than the direction the priest faces during consecration.
Click to expand...


Sorry this is all I could think of after reading this post.
 
ProVobis said:
No, I don’t.
Click to expand...
Well, you should. Catholics on this site constantly chant that this or that direction from the Vatican or the Pope is “not infallible” as if that means that it may be ignored. Infallibility is not the issue.
I believe it’s been pointed out numerous times the Latin is authoritative. Translations from the Latin are done for convenience only. Shouldn’t be used as a reliable reference for arguments.
Click to expand...
The Pope and the bishops are authoritative, regardless of what language they speak.
 
powerofk said:
Here’s my opinion. If the tabernacle has been removed from the sanctuary and placed in a side chapel, the idea of “facing liturgical East” to face Jesus in the tabernacle makes no sense whatsoever. We don’t worship the rising Sun, we worship Jesus. If anything, our eyes should be lifted to Heaven. Secondly, during the consecration, if one truly believes in the Real Presence, no matter how one’s orientation, as long as one is facing the altar, one is looking at Jesus. As long as the words of consecration are spoken by a man who has received the presbyterate Order over bread and wine, the Mass is valid. Period. For some people, the ad orientum position holds special significance and aids in their faith life. But, in reality, the most important thing on Pope Francis’s mind (and the minds of Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II before him) has been the New Evangelization. There’s a reason why all three of these Popes (along with Bl. Paul VI) have celebrated all of their public Masses versus populum. And if versus populum is good enough for the Popes, then it’s good enough for me. If we went back to ad orientum being the norm, it wouldn’t bother me, either (I’ve sometimes attended weekly Mass at a small chapel where the only possible orientation is ad orientum - and yes, the chapel does face East). But I think we have a whole lot of bigger problems to worry about than the direction the priest faces during consecration.
Click to expand...
I mean I get what you are saying and I can agree with it, BUT doing something so small as changing the direction that a priest faces can have a huge ripple effect in people’s faith lives.
 
powerofk said:
Here’s my opinion. If the tabernacle has been removed from the sanctuary and placed in a side chapel, the idea of “facing liturgical East” to face Jesus in the tabernacle makes no sense whatsoever. We don’t worship the rising Sun, we worship Jesus. If anything, our eyes should be lifted to Heaven. Secondly, during the consecration, if one truly believes in the Real Presence, no matter how one’s orientation, as long as one is facing the altar, one is looking at Jesus. As long as the words of consecration are spoken by a man who has received the presbyterate Order over bread and wine, the Mass is valid. Period. For some people, the ad orientum position holds special significance and aids in their faith life. But, in reality, the most important thing on Pope Francis’s mind (and the minds of Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II before him) has been the New Evangelization. There’s a reason why all three of these Popes (along with Bl. Paul VI) have celebrated all of their public Masses versus populum. And if versus populum is good enough for the Popes, then it’s good enough for me. If we went back to ad orientum being the norm, it wouldn’t bother me, either (I’ve sometimes attended weekly Mass at a small chapel where the only possible orientation is ad orientum - and yes, the chapel does face East). But I think we have a whole lot of bigger problems to worry about than the direction the priest faces during consecration.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what those ‘bigger problems’ are. Perhaps you should start a thread about them since this topic is obviously important to those participating.

Ed
 
powerofk said:
Here’s my opinion. If the tabernacle has been removed from the sanctuary and placed in a side chapel,
Click to expand...
It some places it has not been “removed”. In many places, like many Benedictine monasteries or churches of great interest to tourists, it has always been in a side chapel.
powerofk said:
the idea of “facing liturgical East” to face Jesus in the tabernacle makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Too many people here advocating a return “ad orientem” are in fact advocating a return to facing a tabernacle backed up by a wall. As my 1935 Ceremonial demonstrates, this was by no means the only church configuration, in particular in monastic communities, and cathedrals where a large choir was provided for the chapter of canons; in these places (which did were not always laid out on an east-west axis) the priest was often facing the faithful depending on which way the altar was turned: towards the choir, or towards the people. Either way, not all are facing “east” (imagined or geographical): either the choir, or the faithful in the nave depending on configuration, are in fact not facing east “with” the priest, but are facing west when he faces east. No greater example than the St. Peter’s in the Vatican itself illustrates this point. Folks advocating for AO are ignoring the presence of other long-standing traditions and usages in the Church that make versus populum celebration a perfectly acceptable, theologically defensible, and in fact most venerable, option.

Often I hear the argument that what counts was what happened in the majority of parishes, not exceptions like religious communities. The same folks forget that these communities are fully part of the Church, that their clergy often supplied priests to parishes, and indeed in some periods in Church life took up a much bigger place than now. In a long-gone era monasteries where in fact the “parish” in widely dispersed villages with no means to support a church. There are still a dozen territorial abbeys remaining, such as Montecassino in Italy that are the equivalent of a diocese, and where the abbot-nullius is the local ordinary and has nearly the same authority as a bishop.

I also think anyone who thinks ad orientem worship will somehow solve all liturgical and Church issues are smoking some pretty good stuff. Implementing it across the board as some suggest would in fact be just another divisive act in the Church at a time when it needs greater unity.
 
PatrickKennedy said:
I find the expression about women deciding ‘to veil’ very alien to our tradition where did this expression come from. It’s certainly something I have not come across before. Sure women used to often wear a hat a scarf or occasionally a mantilla but a ‘veil’ very strange expression indeed
Click to expand...
Veiling during Mass is an old tradition. I think it is mentioned in one of the Pauline letters, but a Scriptural Scholar will be able to provide the exact verse(s). I think it’s just supposed to add to a woman’s reverence and humility during Mass.

I don’t mean to over-spiritualized, but does anybody wonder about the underlying spiritual effects that a liturgically eastward facing priest would have for those attending a reverently-celebrated Norvus Ordo Mass?

Has anybody thought why Cardinal Sarah promoted this orientation in the first place…?
 
PatrickKennedy said:
I find the expression about women deciding ‘to veil’ very alien to our tradition where did this expression come from. It’s certainly something I have not come across before. Sure women used to often wear a hat a scarf or occasionally a mantilla but a ‘veil’ very strange expression indeed
Click to expand...
it used to be very common. The church I go to downtown for daily mass has a few women that still veil
 
OraLabora said:
I also think anyone who thinks ad orientem worship will somehow solve all liturgical and Church issues are smoking some pretty good stuff. Implementing it across the board as some suggest would in fact be just another divisive act in the Church at a time when it needs greater unity.
Click to expand...
first of all literally nobody is saying going to ad orientem will solve all liturgical and church issues.

Secondly, it should not be a divicise act…if it is, the people that are upset about it are not understanding what is going on.

thirdly, yes the church needs more unity…but sometimes it needs to trim fat and build back up from the base…
 
CatholicSooner said:
first of all literally nobody is saying going to ad orientem will solve all liturgical and church issues.

Secondly, it should not be a divicise act…if it is, the people that are upset about it are not understanding what is going on.

thirdly, yes the church needs more unity…but sometimes it needs to trim fat and build back up from the base…
Click to expand...
So those that support versus populum are the fat, I take it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top