The poster is probably referring to the united states. There is a scary trend here. uscatholic.org/blog/201305/knowing-believing-and-sometimes-not-knowing-believing-too-27323I 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 don’t think the poster meant to insult you. I don’t find anything offensive.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.
our parish really starts to use a lot of latin during advent and lent and I love itI hear during Lent a lot of parishes open up with the Latin.
Maybe this is the “best” way Jubilate Deo can be implemented.
I agree with you but the trick is to show how. Don’t forget the status quo usually offers the path of least resistance.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.
no doubt. It will take a lot of catecisis and will be a slow processI agree with you but the trick is to show how. Don’t forget the status quo usually offers the path of least resistance.
If there are Catholics who are so dense that they don’t realize what the Mass is, simply changing the direction which the priest faces isn’t going to tell them anything about the Mass except that for some reason, another change was made.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.
“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.”Well I can only speak for Catholics in the US, but i have no doubt there are many many Catholics that “are so dense”. And as I said, there would have to be some education and catechesis for why these changes are being made.If there are Catholics who are so dense that they don’t realize what the Mass is, simply changing the direction which the priest faces isn’t going to tell them anything about the Mass except that for some reason, another change was made.
I mean that is all opinion. I agree that to God it makes no difference. But I already pointed out how it helps me stay focused. So to say it has no impact isn’t true.Golly - I find prayers addressed to the Father to be just exactly that. And which direction the priest faces has no impact on that.
got his wings clipped? I highly doubt anyone would use this term if they read the entirety of what Cardinal Sarah said and the response from Pope Francis. People are blowing this up for some reason to make it sound like Sarah got shot downIn any event, one poster referred to the subsequent statement from Rome as a “walking back”, which is another way of saying the Cardinal got his wings clipped.
This whole idea from the moment Sarah proposed it has been overblown. Some were treating it as if it were a Vatican issued mandate. Hence the now equally overblown response to it being “shot down”.Well I can only speak for Catholics in the US, but i have no doubt there are many many Catholics that “are so dense”. And as I said, there would have to be some education and catechesis for why these changes are being made.
I mean that is all opinion. I agree that to God it makes no difference. But I already pointed out how it helps me stay focused. So to say it has no impact isn’t true.
got his wings clipped? I highly doubt anyone would use this term if they read the entirety of what Cardinal Sarah said and the response from Pope Francis. People are blowing this up for some reason to make it sound like Sarah got shot down
I did not use the term “shot down”, but it is clear that there has been a “walking back”. And I am entirely comfortable with my comment. The Cardinal is in an international position, and international positions generally require a degree of sensitivity in how one communicates matters.Well I can only speak for Catholics in the US, but i have no doubt there are many many Catholics that “are so dense”. And as I said, there would have to be some education and catechesis for why these changes are being made.
I mean that is all opinion. I agree that to God it makes no difference. But I already pointed out how it helps me stay focused. So to say it has no impact isn’t true.
got his wings clipped? I highly doubt anyone would use this term if they read the entirety of what Cardinal Sarah said and the response from Pope Francis. People are blowing this up for some reason to make it sound like Sarah got shot down
When you are in a position such as he is, then you are careful as to not only what you say, but how you say it. The fact that the Vatican stepped in indicates this was not something that upset a few people in the US. And the fact that the Vatican stepped in indicates that this is a bit more of import than “overblown”.This whole idea from the moment Sarah proposed it has been overblown. Some were treating it as if it were a Vatican issued mandate. Hence the now equally overblown response to it being “shot down”.
I mean I get it. But the Pope asked him to do a job and he did. And I’m not sure he made the statements publicly. Wasn’t he giving a speech as a conference for bishops?I did not use the term “shot down”, but it is clear that there has been a “walking back”. And I am entirely comfortable with my comment. The Cardinal is in an international position, and international positions generally require a degree of sensitivity in how one communicates matters.
I have no question that the Cardinal prefers ad orientem. Howevr, when it appears that somewhere between the great majority and the vast majority of OF Masses in parishes are said ad populum, and where it is typicla in international matters to signal a change by making “suggestions” - which are actually signals, then one needs to determine how what may be a true suggestion should be communicated so that it is not seen as a signal - which this was seen as.
I am not suggesting, by my comment of wings clipped, that he was keel hauled for making a suggestion. I suspect that the conversation had more to do with how one goes about making public statements.
You would prefer the term “corrected”? Fine - it appears he was corrected, and I presume that correction had to do with speaking publicly, not with the question of orientation itself. He did not say anything which might not be possible, subject to determination by the local bishop as to orientation. In his position, any public statement can be taken in ways he might not intend - as I will presume he did not intend in this circumstance, but which factually appears to have been taken as a signal of some reasonably near future change.
And that is why people got upset. There is protocol, not just in the Church but in society as well, for leaders who speak publicly.
He was speaking with priests and bishops at a conference and gave his opinion as a head of the divine worship congregation. He didn’t give a directive. He gave an opinion, and it was met with great applause. He also didn’t tell anybody to do anything they weren’t comfortable with or that goes against Rome.When you are in a position such as he is, then you are careful as to not only what you say, but how you say it. The fact that the Vatican stepped in indicates this was not something that upset a few people in the US. And the fact that the Vatican stepped in indicates that this is a bit more of import than “overblown”.
Leaders are supposed to lead. And when a leader says something, it is presumed they are indicating a direction, not just making a personal comment.
It was a public meeting that was, as they say, “on the record.”He was speaking with priests and bishops at a conference and gave his opinion as a head of the divine worship congregation. He didn’t give a directive. He gave an opinion, and it was met with great applause. He also didn’t tell anybody to do anything they weren’t comfortable with or that goes against Rome.
And all the vatican did was let people know that this wasn’t a directive.
I can’t believe how overblown this all is. But that is typical these days
If you are priest and you are not offended by it…that is your issue.I don’t think the poster meant to insult you. I don’t find anything offensive.
The reason is in the meaning of the words themselves.Why is that?
Also, why do you prefer the term ad absiden vs ad orientem
I would like to offer my public apology for the second time, Father. As I stated, I have no opinion at all regarding the postures priests should use in the Novus Ordo, it’s for the authorities to decide. I was simply acknowledging the love you show for your priestly vocation in the posts you make on this forum. You often go to great lengths explaining matters of theology, liturgical scholarship, and the mind of the world’s bishops to the people on this forum, and my statement was an acknowledgement that the postures you use at holy mass are surely a reflection of this, and that if you thought the posture being discussed in this thread were a more accurate reflection of theology, liturgical scholarship, and the mind of the world’s bishops that you would use that one. I have no opinion about either posture. Was simply saying that I’m sure your actions in the liturgy are carefully and deliberately chosen based on the best motives.If you are priest and you are not offended by it…that is your issue.
I am a priest. And the comment was addressed to me. And it was profoundly insulting – as it should be to any priest, actually. To suggest that my decision making process on matters of fundamental liturgical norms would be guided by the ephemeral feelings of very misguided people rather by than theology, liturgical scholarship, and the mind of the world’s bishops is to suggest an approach and way of thinking that is profoundly disordered.
What else did they do?The Holy See in its statement did more than clarify that these reflections were not a directive.
Wow, I’m just going to respectfully disagree and say that most priests would not be insulted by what was said.If you are priest and you are not offended by it…that is your issue.
I am a priest. And the comment was addressed to me. And it was profoundly insulting – as it should be to any priest, actually. To suggest that my decision making process on matters of fundamental liturgical norms would be guided by the ephemeral feelings of very misguided people rather by than theology, liturgical scholarship, and the mind of the world’s bishops is to suggest an approach and way of thinking that is profoundly disordered.
so semantics again.The reason is in the meaning of the words themselves.
Ad orientem means “toward the East/to the East.” I do say that I am celebrating Mass ad orientem when I am actually facing East, while I am at the altar presiding at Mass. That is true, actually, whether the congregation is in front of me or is behind me. Because, again, I am declaring that I am ad orientem or that the direction of the sacrifice is ad orientem.
On the other hand, I am in no meaningful sense ad orientem if I am facing North or South or West…it again not mattering whether the congregation is occupying a liturgical space that is in front of me or behind me.
In the various places I have celebrated Mass where we did not have the advantage of a freestanding altar that complied with the new liturgical directives (and because of which I would be celebrating Mass turned toward the nave of the church), I am celebrating Mass turned toward the apse of the church. In such a position, I am ad absidem.
The concept of a “symbolic East” is one I don’t employ – not in my lectures, in my conversation, or in my concepts. It is like saying that my walk is oriented to “symbolic north”…whatever direction I am actually walking toward.
Objective reality…looking at the rising sun, for example…tells one if one is, in fact, ad orientem or is actually ad occidentem.
The directions of a compass are not open to subjective re-interpretations.
Reading through some of these posts, I was struck by the above quote from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger posted by Ed. It makes the current controversy seem even more striking to me in its immediate response in opposition to what had been an ancient and venerable tradition.From The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
“On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer.”Code:“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.”
Ed