Vatican squelches rumors of new rules on Mass facing east

[LordHaveMercy]

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.

Thanks be to God that you do believe in the Real Presence! It’s important to remember that, by believing in the Real Presence, you are in the minority. It’s true whether anybody chooses to believe it or not, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if more Catholics started to believe in the Real Presence? This is the motivation behind those who advocate for certain postures and orientations in the Mass. The liturgy can teach people truths of the faith by engaging their external sense.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

amd why can’t we just say east. I know it’s ‘liturgical east’ but does it make us feel awful important with the Latin phrases? God knows the priests were done in with the Latin poor lads. Do we have to join in?

 

[edwest2]

amd why can’t we just say east. I know it’s ‘liturgical east’ but does it make us feel awful important with the Latin phrases? God knows the priests were done in with the Latin poor lads. Do we have to join in?

Priests were “done in” with the Latin? I knew - understood - the Latin at Mass. The English and Latin were right next to each other in the missal. We had Latin class at my Catholic school until 1970. No coincidence it stopped then.

From The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

“The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning towards the East was not a ‘celebration towards the wall’; it did not mean that the priest ‘had his back to the people’: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together ‘towards the Lord.'”

“As one of the Fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J. A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession towards 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.”

The OF and EF are equally valid.

Ed

 

[Brendan]

amd why can’t we just say east. I know it’s ‘liturgical east’ but does it make us feel awful important with the Latin phrases? God knows the priests were done in with the Latin poor lads. Do we have to join in?

According to Vatican II, we are to know at least SOME of the Latin

Sacrosanctum Concillium

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

So even though the bishops may allow the vernacular Mass (and have done so), we should also be able to sign or say, in Latin, those parts of the Mass which pertain to the faithful.

I found a LOT of benefit in that. I used to travel internationally for work. In that one week, I might be in Seoul, the next in Sao Paul, the following one in Frankfort.

Needless to say, I found myself commonly going to Mass in places where the vernacular was NOT English. So I would commonly send an email to the local Chancellory office, and find out where a Latin Mass (most commonly it was OF). But that allowed me to actively participate. I could pray alongside my fellow Catholics, making the same responses and following along with the Mass.

I learned the Latin at my grandmother’s parish. The parish she went to was a combination of Hispanic and Irish ( my father is from Co. Down). It was not a big deal with the Tridentine Mass, everyone went to the same Masses, Fr would give the homily, part in English and part in Spanish.

After Vatican II, he continued to say the Mass in Latin, and the homily in English and Spanish, everyone still went to the same Masses.

So when we brought grandma to Mass, (as we often did), we went to her parish and hear Mass in Latin. It was not hard to pick up at all, and my father had no difficulty letting us know what it all meant.

Contrast this to a lot of parishes in the US that are effectively two or more parishes in one. The Anglophone go to their Mass, the Hispanics go to theirs ( in Spanish) and maybe the Vietnamese go to Mass their Mass. And rarely to the groups even meet.

As Catholics, having a common language that all know, aids us in welcoming international visitors and other communities, practicing the virtue of hospitality. It would allow these parishes to have common Masses once again, and be one community.

Pope Benedict reiterated that in Sacramentum Caritas

None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin… nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

According to Vatican II, we are to know at least SOME of the Latin

Sacrosanctum Concillium

So even though the bishops may allow the vernacular Mass (and have done so), we should also be able to sign or say, in Latin, those parts of the Mass which pertain to the faithful.

I found a LOT of benefit in that. I used to travel internationally for work. In that one week, I might be in Seoul, the next in Sao Paul, the following one in Frankfort.

Needless to say, I found myself commonly going to Mass in places where the vernacular was NOT English. So I would commonly send an email to the local Chancellory office, and find out where a Latin Mass (most commonly it was OF). But that allowed me to actively participate. I could pray alongside my fellow Catholics, making the same responses and following along with the Mass.

I learned the Latin at my grandmother’s parish. The parish she went to was a combination of Hispanic and Irish ( my father is from Co. Down). It was not a big deal with the Tridentine Mass, everyone went to the same Masses, Fr would give the homily, part in English and part in Spanish.

After Vatican II, he continued to say the Mass in Latin, and the homily in English and Spanish, everyone still went to the same Masses.

So when we brought grandma to Mass, (as we often did), we went to her parish and hear Mass in Latin. It was not hard to pick up at all, and my father had no difficulty letting us know what it all meant.

Contrast this to a lot of parishes in the US that are effectively two or more parishes in one. The Anglophone go to their Mass, the Hispanics go to theirs ( in Spanish) and maybe the Vietnamese go to Mass their Mass. And rarely to the groups even meet.

As Catholics, having a common language that all know, aids us in welcoming international visitors and other communities, practicing the virtue of hospitality. It would allow these parishes to have common Masses once again, and be one community.

Pope Benedict reiterated that in Sacramentum Caritas

I was in Spain during Holy Week and the vernacular of course is Spanish. I did yean for a bit of Latin to feel included. And when we got a bit it was great.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thanks be to God that you do believe in the Real Presence! It’s important to remember that, by believing in the Real Presence, you are in the minority. It’s true whether anybody chooses to believe it or not, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if more Catholics started to believe in the Real Presence? This is the motivation behind those who advocate for certain postures and orientations in the Mass. The liturgy can teach people truths of the faith by engaging their external sense.

I don’t understand these two underlined statements at all. Actually, I find them bizarre.

The last statement is certainly true.

In what sense are you saying only a minority of Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Over the decades of my priesthood, I have celebrated Mass using the vetus ordo and the novus ordo. I have celebrated ad absidem and versus populum. I have presided at Masses where the altar is at the direct center of the church with the congregation surrounding me at 360 degrees. I was presider at Mass with people all standing as well as with them all kneeling…and various combinations thereof. I have celebrated Mass with Europeans, Africans, Latin Americans, North Americans, Asians and – memorably – with the peoples of the Pacific Islands.

In fact, it was in the liturgies that were most marked by a rich and profound inculturation in which there was correspondingly the most palpable and demonstrated faith in the presence of Christ in the Consecrated Elements. Those are the liturgies I look back upon from my retirement, both as a priest and as a professor of liturgy, as among my greatest and most cherished memories.

From my vantage point, I could not disagree more with the premise that only a minority of Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist…or, as a professor of liturgy, that orientation of the altar or the posture of the people have a particularly meaningful effect in the celebration of the liturgy…that principally rests with other elements.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

I don’t understand these two underlined statements at all. Actually, I find them bizarre.

The last statement is certainly true.

In what sense are you saying only a minority of Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Over the decades of my priesthood, I have celebrated Mass using the vetus ordo and the novus ordo. I have celebrated ad absidem and versus populum. I have presided at Masses where the altar is at the direct center of the church with the congregation surrounding me at 360 degrees. I was presider at Mass with people all standing as well as with them all kneeling…and various combinations thereof. I have celebrated Mass with Europeans, Africans, Latin Americans, North Americans, Asians and – memorably – with the peoples of the Pacific Islands.

In fact, it was in the liturgies that were most marked by a rich and profound inculturation in which there was correspondingly the most palpable and demonstrated faith in the presence of Christ in the Consecrated Elements. Those are the liturgies I look back upon from my retirement, both as a priest and as a professor of liturgy, as among my greatest and most cherished memories.

From my vantage point, I could not disagree more with the premise that only a minority of Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist…or, as a professor of liturgy, that orientation of the altar or the posture of the people have a particularly meaningful effect in the celebration of the liturgy…that principally rests with other elements.

If I haven’t said it before, thanks be to God for your Priesthood, Father.

In the first sentence, I’m referring to a Gallup Poll that questioned Catholics regarding their beliefs about Holy Communion. Sadly, only 30% responded that they believed in the real presence Here is a response that was written at the time by Archbishop Michael J Sheehan.

I certainly understand that you disagree with the last sentence you underlined. I can only go by what you’ve posted on this forum, but I feel comfortable saying this: If you believed facing the same direction as the people would deepen their faith, you would say Mass ad absidem every time. However, your studies and work as a Priest lead you believe that this is not the case. I’m not here to criticize that .

For the record, I do not have a stance (no pun intended) on what postures should be used in the novus ordo. I am a layman, it’s not my decision to make. I can only contribute personal experiences. While still a protestant, I attended a novus ordo mass that was said ad absidem and it did help me realize that the mass was an entirely different “thing” that communion service at my methodist community. I promised God I would attend Mass every Sunday from then on. Four months later, I was Catholic. I don’t attribute my conversion to someone’s posture at Mass, I was already strongly leaning towards joining the Church.

For the record, the Mass I went to was said by Bishop Edward Slattery. Here is an article where His Excellency discusses his reasons for adopting this posture.

I hope this helps clarify my statements. Thank you for inviting me to explain.

 

[ProVobis]

According to Vatican II, we are to know at least SOME of the Latin

Sacrosanctum Concillium

So even though the bishops may allow the vernacular Mass (and have done so), we should also be able to sign or say, in Latin, those parts of the Mass which pertain to the faithful.

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

Unfortunately, the faithful were not taught these chants, and it is rare to hear any music from this collection sung in parishes today.

Its Latin selections, since they form a minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant, would allow us to finally fulfill the provision of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which said that “steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them” (§54).

This is reiterated in the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).

 

[graciew]

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

To your delight, we sang and still sing some of them both in US and where I live. And it comes off as very natural for everybody . And it is kind of special when languages flow together naturally,and much more so when sung.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In the first sentence, I’m referring to a Gallup Poll that questioned Catholics regarding their beliefs about Holy Communion. Sadly, only 30% responded that they believed in the real presence. Here is a response that was written at the time by Archbishop Michael J Sheehan

I certainly understand that you disagree with the last sentence you underlined. I can only go by what you’ve posted on this forum, but I feel comfortable saying this: If you believed facing the same direction as the people would deepen their faith, you would say Mass ad absidem every time. However, your studies and work as a Priest lead you believe that this is not the case. I’m not here to criticize that

For the record, I do not have a stance (no pun intended) on what postures should be used in the novus ordo. I am a layman, it’s not my decision to make. I can only contribute personal experiences. While still a protestant, I attended a novus ordo mass that was said ad absidem and it did help me realize that the mass was an entirely different “thing” that communion service at my methodist community. I promised God I would attend Mass every Sunday from then on. Four months later, I was Catholic. I don’t attribute my conversion to someone’s posture at Mass, I was already strongly leaning towards joining the Church

For the record, the Mass I went to was said by Bishop Edward Slattery. Here is an article where His Excellency discusses his reasons for adopting this posture

I hope this helps clarify my statements. Thank you for inviting me to explain

As regards your first statement, you would be referring to the poll by the United States polling firm…it was in the early '90s. I remember it

It is not a poll of Catholics in any meaningful sense…it was a poll of Americans who are Catholic, and that of varying degrees of observance; they make up the merest fraction of global Catholics

And even accounting for this tiny sample, this firm’s methodology was flawed for the formulation of what was asked of those being polled

A renowned former Lutheran pastor, who became a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and was a singular person for his many outstanding qualities, Father Richard John Neuhaus, showed the errors of this poll via his institute and its journal…as actually did academics from the Catholic University of America and Georgetown University in their published research. Their findings were more in line with what would be expected

But again, this was concerning Americans. You wrote about Catholics. Let us be clear: while something around 40% of the world’s Catholics are in Latin America, a mere 7.3% of the world’s Catholics are to be found in North America…which, I hasten to say, even that is a larger entity than the United States. Your original statement, “It’s important to remember that, by believing in the Real Presence, you are in the minority” is therefore profoundly misleading, at best

As for your second statement, “I feel comfortable saying this: If you believed facing the same direction as the people would deepen their faith, you would say Mass ad absidem every time,” in fact you could not be more mistaken; you have actually insulted me and it is offensive. That is not a determination at all in what guides my decision about the direction in which I stand to preside at Mass. The decision of where I stand at an altar derives from:

• Firstly, universal norms, which are clear
• Secondly, the clear practice of the Bishop of Rome, which is reflected in how the college of bishops also offer their Masses
• Thirdly, from the guidance of my own diocesan bishop which is that, where there is a freestanding altar, Mass is to be said facing the people. Where a freestanding altar cannot be placed, as much of the Mass as possible is to be said facing the people
• Fourthly, and based on the situation in situ, what is actually possible for Mass to be celebrated versus populum, given the physical possibilities and limitations, so that the fruits of the reformed liturgy find their proper emphasis

If there is a situation in which the people would have “deeper faith” because the priest is facing away from them, it shows a catechetical need

The chairman of your National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship has issued a clarification for your country but it also speaks well to the reality in the other countries:

The Bishop states:

1. • “As a final comment, n. 299 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal does show a preference for the celebrant’s facing the people ‘whenever possible’ in the placement and orientation of the altar”
   • “However, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has clarified on earlier occasions that this does not prohibit the celebration of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form ad orientem”
   • “Such an important decision should always be made with the supervision and guidance of the local bishop”
   He also adds the note that “Although permitted, the decision whether or not to preside ad orientem should take into consideration the physical configuration of the altar and sanctuary space,” which is exactly what I have written as to why it is done in Europe: there are instances where it is not possible or feasible to install a new altar satisfactorily and so a part of the Mass is said ad absidem for that reason. It is not because of the disposition of those in the liturgical assembly but for pragmatic reasons…and the people see clearly enough for themselves the physical limitations, which necessitate the arrangement

 

[TMC]

I don’t understand these two underlined statements at all. Actually, I find them bizarre.

The last statement is certainly true.

In what sense are you saying only a minority of Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Over the decades of my priesthood, I have celebrated Mass using the vetus ordo and the novus ordo. I have celebrated ad absidem and versus populum. I have presided at Masses where the altar is at the direct center of the church with the congregation surrounding me at 360 degrees. I was presider at Mass with people all standing as well as with them all kneeling…and various combinations thereof. I have celebrated Mass with Europeans, Africans, Latin Americans, North Americans, Asians and – memorably – with the peoples of the Pacific Islands.

In fact, it was in the liturgies that were most marked by a rich and profound inculturation in which there was correspondingly the most palpable and demonstrated faith in the presence of Christ in the Consecrated Elements. Those are the liturgies I look back upon from my retirement, both as a priest and as a professor of liturgy, as among my greatest and most cherished memories.

From my vantage point, I could not disagree more with the premise that only a minority of Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist…or, as a professor of liturgy, that orientation of the altar or the posture of the people have a particularly meaningful effect in the celebration of the liturgy…that principally rests with other elements.

I have been posting here for almost nine years, and I constantly here on this forum that Catholics don’t believe in the real presence. I never hear that sentiment expressed in real life by Catholics I actually know.

Here is what I have figured out. When someone says Catholics don’t believe in the real presence what they mean is that find Catholics insufficiently pious. They are saying, if that person believed as fully as I do, they would act/speak/believe as I do. Because they don’t receive on the tongue/receive kneeling/want communion rails /support ad orientum/etc/etc/ they must not really believe.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

you have actually insulted me and it is offensive

This was not my intention, I was very much trying to convey my belief that your posture during Mass is chosen in good faith. Have a blessed Sunday, Father.

 

[ProVobis]

To your delight, we sang and still sing some of them both in US and where I live. And it comes off as very natural for everybody . And it is kind of special when languages flow together naturally,and much more so when sung.

I hear during Lent a lot of parishes open up with the Latin.

Maybe this is the “best” way Jubilate Deo can be implemented.

 

[ProVobis]

The Polish translation of GIRM #299 seems to be different from the English.

Fr. Z discusses it here.

 

[otjm]

Yet it was and continues to be lawful for a priest to celebrate the Novus Ordo mass ad Orientem.

It makes perfect sense that the priest faces us as he preaches to us or proclaims the Gospel to us… But for the life of me I dont understand why people are so obsessed with the perceived need to study his face as he offers the Eucharistic sacrifice.

I don’t study his face. I watch what he is doing, as I listen to what he is saying. As do most everyone else.

It is the mantra of those who despise ad populum to refer to it as a show, as putting emphasis on the priest, and a host of other commentary which turn to the vile. Many of those commentators have little or no knowledge of the history of liturgical reform, thinking that it somehow appeared out of whole cloth after Vatican 2.

As to any lawfulness, last I checked, the individual who determines liturgical matters is the bishop, when there are alternatives.

 

[otjm]

Thanks be to God that you do believe in the Real Presence! It’s important to remember that, by believing in the Real Presence, you are in the minority. It’s true whether anybody chooses to believe it or not, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if more Catholics started to believe in the Real Presence? This is the motivation behind those who advocate for certain postures and orientations in the Mass. The liturgy can teach people truths of the faith by engaging their external sense.

That is not exactly correct. What is true is that many Catholics have no clue what transubstantiation means; but they believe Christ is truly present.

And interestingly, there are a large number of Protestants who believe Christ is truly present in their eucharistic celebrations. They may incorrect in their belief (because of lack of a valid priesthood), but blanket statements are out of line.

 

[otjm]

I don’t understand these two underlined statements at all. Actually, I find them bizarre.

The last statement is certainly true.

In what sense are you saying only a minority of Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Over the decades of my priesthood, I have celebrated Mass using the vetus ordo and the novus ordo. I have celebrated ad absidem and versus populum. I have presided at Masses where the altar is at the direct center of the church with the congregation surrounding me at 360 degrees. I was presider at Mass with people all standing as well as with them all kneeling…and various combinations thereof. I have celebrated Mass with Europeans, Africans, Latin Americans, North Americans, Asians and – memorably – with the peoples of the Pacific Islands.

In fact, it was in the liturgies that were most marked by a rich and profound inculturation in which there was correspondingly the most palpable and demonstrated faith in the presence of Christ in the Consecrated Elements. Those are the liturgies I look back upon from my retirement, both as a priest and as a professor of liturgy, as among my greatest and most cherished memories.

From my vantage point, I could not disagree more with the premise that only a minority of Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist…or, as a professor of liturgy, that orientation of the altar or the posture of the people have a particularly meaningful effect in the celebration of the liturgy…that principally rests with other elements.

The statement comes from several polls taken a few years ago.

Polls follow the comment of some wag who said “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics”. Polls should have been included, as one can obtain different results by how one words the question.

Since then, there have been polls which have shown a majority, of both Catholics and Protestants who believe that Christ is truly present. However, the prior polls have risen to the level of urban myths, taking on a life of their own as they are repeated and repeated. Not everyone is a sociologist, and not all sociologists are capable of writing questions in a manner that gets past unrealized errors and biases.

If one asks someone if they believe in transubstantiation, and that person never heard such a word used in the religious training they received, then the likelihood of an intelligent response is somewhere between zero and minus five. That leaves the poll taker (and those relying on the results) with false positives.

 

[otjm]

I have been posting here for almost nine years, and I constantly here on this forum that Catholics don’t believe in the real presence. I never hear that sentiment expressed in real life by Catholics I actually know.

Here is what I have figured out. When someone says Catholics don’t believe in the real presence what they mean is that find Catholics insufficiently pious. They are saying, if that person believed as fully as I do, they would act/speak/believe as I do. Because they don’t receive on the tongue/receive kneeling/want communion rails /support ad orientum/etc/etc/ they must not really believe.

That undoubtedly is true for some.

Others, however, rely on the Gallup poll, which had poorly stated questions leading to false answers.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Well…as I have said elsewhere, I only use the term ad orientem when I am, literally, facing East.

Why is that?

Also, why do you prefer the term ad absiden vs ad orientem

 

[CatholicSooner]

At the very very least, I feel that ad orientem is a reminder to the congregation that we are addressing the Father. So see the priest turned away from the people, at least for me, jilts my mind back to the purpose of this mass if it ever starts to wonder. This can have huge consequence.

I feel, at least in the U.S., that a lot of Catholics probably don’t even realize what the mass is and what we are doing. So reverting back to ad orientem would be a reminder/teaching moment for a great number of Catholics.