Why are TLM Lessons not facing the people?

[Lazerlike42]

I’m hoping somebody can explain this to me.

My understanding of the Mass - in particular the very precise structure of the Pian Missal, is that it creates a dialogue between God and the faithful through the intercession of the priest.

The priest begins by approaching God at the foot of the altar, and then he and the people ask God the pardon of their sins in the confetior, and then the Collect is offered to God. After this, The Father speaks to the people through the Epistle and the Psalm, Christ speaks to them through the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit does so through the sermon. Then, the people respond by assenting to all that God has said in the Credo, and the priest offers the Holy Sacrifice. God responds by giving Communion to the people, and the people manifest this familial gift through the Our Father before the priest finally offers God’s blessing and the Mass is over.

So I don’t understand why the Epistle and Gospel are not read facing the people. In the Canon, the priest is acting as intercessor for the people as they go to God. He offers Sacrifice to Him, and so the ad orientem posture makes wonderful sense to me. Yet in the Lessons, God is supposed to be speaking to the people. So why are they not read towards the people?

Correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that the Epistle is read ad orientem, and the Gospel is read facing the side. Or perhaps they are both ad orientem. I don’t currently recall.

As long as we’re on the subject, I am also curious what the symbolism is of moving the book to the other side of the altar for the Gospel reading.

 

[muffinmojo]

It depends. I’ve seen it done where the gospel/epistle are chanted in latin and then read in english from the ambo, and where it is simply read at the side. I saw what you are describing in an SSPX video (at a seminary) but I have also seen videos of their Masses where it is done in the way I described. The TLM in Seattle has the epistle and such simply read in latin by the priest, but the gospel is read in english from the ambo, then the homily is preached. It seems an effective way to me.

The Tridentine Missal ain’t perfect, it could do with some changes. Overall, however, it’s still golden.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Nobody knows?

This is a Mass that is bursting at the seems with symbolism, and which is proclaimed as the “Mass of the Ages” because of how perfectly and beautifully this symbolism conveys the truths of the faith. So why do the symbolisms of the lessons basically cocntradict the very reality that they are supposed to convey?

I have to add that I’m not asking this confrontationally, as I can imagine some might perceive the tone of this post to suggest. I am assuming there is a reason for this, and I’d really liek to figure out just what it is, that’s all.

Peace and God bless

 

[Cranch]

…So why do the symbolisms of the lessons basically contradict the very reality that they are supposed to convey?

This is a strong statement that, in my opinion, puts the wrong interpretation on one aspect of the externals associated with the Mass readings. I would reply that the readings are not simply plain speech addressed to the congregation in the manner of “Dominus vobiscum” or “Ite, missa est” solemn though these expressions are; but Sacred Scripture, the holy Word of God and thus merit some differentiation from the former.

That being said, regarding the differences in proclaiming the Epistle and Gospel, the famous 19th century abbot Dom Prosper Guéranger wrote:We should notice the difference, wherewith the Church would have the Epistle and the Gospel announced in the Mass. As to the Epistle, it is merely preceded by the Subdeacon’s saying whence is taken the Passage, which he is going to sing; whereas, the Gospel is always preceded by the words: Dominus vobiscum. The reason is, that in the Epistle, it is but the servant that speaks to us; but, in the Gospel, it is the word of the Master himself, which we are about to hear; and, therefore, a means is taken for exciting the attention of the Faithful.
You perhaps have noticed the priest, in proclaiming the Gospel, is turned slightly at an angle to the altar (as is the Book). As explained by Dom Guéranger:The Priest, who says Mass without Deacon and Subdeacon, should, when he reads the Gospel, so place the Missal, that he himself shall be somewhat turned towards the North. It is the same with the Deacon; - he stands facing the North when he sings the Gospel;- because, according to the word of the Prophet Jeremias (1:14.) From the North, shall all evil break forth upon all the inhabitants of the Land. It is for the same mysterious reason, that in the Baptism of adults, the Catechumen is put, so as to face the North, when uttering his renunciation of Satan.
The TLM I attend does not use a deacon but when a deacon reads the Gospel, I believe it normally is at an ambo or otherwise away from the altar. I think this may sometimes occur at modern lecterns facing the people (west) rather than north, but I’m not sure. Dom Guéranger indicates the use of an ambo by the deacon:Having received the blessing, the Deacon kisses the hand of the Priest, who, for this purpose, should place his hand on the Book of the Gospels, which he thus virtually gives to the Deacon, commissioning him to read it in his name. A procession is then formed towards the Gospel-Ambo; and there the Deacon begins with this solemn expression: Dominus vobiscum.
Also:Formerly, in the larger churches, there were erected two Ambos, or pulpits: one for the Epistle, and the other for the Gospel. At present, we do not find these two Ambos…
I will note that when both the Epistle and Gospel are reread in English at my TLM, it is done from a west-facing lectern, versus populum.

I have heard meaning assigned to the movement of the Book from one side of the altar to the other. For example, as a symbol of the Old Covenant and then the New Covenant of the Gospel. Although the Epistle at a TLM is usually taken from the New Testament Letters, supposedly in the early centuries of the Mass, there was a reading from the Old Testament in addition to the Epistle and Gospel, so this symbolic explanation might be valid. Or the separation may simply be to further distinguish and elevate the Holy Gospels.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Thanks, Cranch, that was informative and very useful. However, I still don’t really have an answer to my question, unfortunately.

Let me rephrase my question based on what you have said. If the lessons are not for the purpose God speaking to the people, then what are they for? And if they are for the purpose of God speaking to the people, why are they spoken in different directions?

Of course all of the symbolism that you presented makes sense, particularly about the north. However, to me this seems like a more insignificant symbolism compared to the primary act of God speaking to His people that is occurring.

Peacec and God bless

 

[AJV]

Thanks, Cranch, that was informative and very useful. However, I still don’t really have an answer to my question, unfortunately.

Let me rephrase my question based on what you have said. If the lessons are not for the purpose God speaking to the people, then what are they for? And if they are for the purpose of God speaking to the people, why are they spoken in different directions?

Of course all of the symbolism that you presented makes sense, particularly about the north. However, to me this seems like a more insignificant symbolism compared to the primary act of God speaking to His people that is occurring.

Peacec and God bless

There are two reasons: historical and mystical. Perhaps tomorrow I shall be able to type out the piece from Jungmann’s book, on orientation - though, I hasten to add that some of it is his theory and there are indeed alternatives.

In short, it is that change in orientation of the churches was responsible for the change. In addition, a growing sense of mysticism and allegory for the actions reinforced and in some cases, prompted the change in posture. And lastly that there may have been a number of practical reasons (for example, the author of the Micrologus says that the Epistle side must be kept free for the offerings)

I have read of late, as part of an objection to the vernacular, some people alleging that the readings are also directed to God (in a primary sense). IMHO, that is untenable in the view of the Fathers and reliable explanations of the Mass, as well as the Traditional liturgical books themselves.

 

[stmaria]

=Lazerlike42;3649456]
So I don’t understand why the Epistle and Gospel are not read facing the people. In the Canon, the priest is acting as intercessor for the people as they go to God. He offers Sacrifice to Him, and so the ad orientem posture makes wonderful sense to me. Yet in the Lessons, God is supposed to be speaking to the people. So why are they not read towards the people?

Since they are read facing the people in the vernacular there probably was no reason to face the people and say them in Latin. Only guessing.

As long as we’re on the subject, I am also curious what the symbolism is of moving the book to the other side of the altar for the Gospel reading.

Douay Catechsim of 1649
remnantnewspaper.com/The%20Douay%20Catechism%20of%201649.pdf

Q. 976. Why do we rise up at the reading of the Gospel?
A. To signify our readiness to go, and do, whither, and whatsoever it commands us.
Q. 977. What means the Gospel?
A. It signifies the preaching of Christ; and is
**Q. 978. Why is the Gospel read at the North end, or left side of the Altar?
A. To signify that by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, the kingdom of the Devil was
overthrown.
Q. 979. How prove you that?
A. Because the Devil hath chosen the North (figuratively infidels, and the wicked) for the seat of his malice. “From the North shall all evil be opened upon all the inhabitants of the land.” Jer. i. 14. and Zach. ii. 7. **
Q. 980. Why doth the priest before he begins the Gospel, salute the people with
Dominus vobiscum?
A. To prepare them for a devout hearing of it, and to beg of our Lord to make them
worthy hearers of his word, which can save their souls.
A. To move attention, and to signify what part of the Gospel he then reads.
Q. 982. Why doth the clerk answer, Gloria tibi Domine, Glory be to thee, O Lord?
A. To give the glory of the gospel to God, who hath of his mercy made us partakers of it.
Q. 983. Why then doth the priest sign the book with the sign of the cross?
A. To signify that the doctrine there delivered, appertains to the cross and passion of
Christ.
Q. 984. Why after this do both priest and people sign themselves with the cross in
three places?
A. They sign themselves on their foreheads, to signify they are not, nor will be ashamed
to profess Christ crucified: on their mouths to signify they will be ready with their
mouths, to confess unto salvation: and on their breast to signify that with their hearts they
believe unto justice.
Q. 985. Why at the end of the Gospel, do they sign their breast again with the sign
of the cross?
A. That the Devil may not steal the seed of God’s word out of their hearts.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Since they are read facing the people in the vernacular there probably was no reason to face the people and say them in Latin. Only guessing.

Well, they weren’t always read a second time in the vernacular, were they?

Douay Catechsim of 1649
remnantnewspaper.com/The%20Douay%20Catechism%20of%201649.pdf

Q. 976. Why do we rise up at the reading of the Gospel?
A. To signify our readiness to go, and do, whither, and whatsoever it commands us.
Q. 977. What means the Gospel?
A. It signifies the preaching of Christ; and is
**Q. 978. Why is the Gospel read at the North end, or left side of the Altar?
A. To signify that by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, the kingdom of the Devil was
overthrown.
Q. 979. How prove you that?
A. Because the Devil hath chosen the North (figuratively infidels, and the wicked) for the seat of his malice. “From the North shall all evil be opened upon all the inhabitants of the land.” Jer. i. 14. and Zach. ii. 7. **
Q. 980. Why doth the priest before he begins the Gospel, salute the people with
Dominus vobiscum?
A. To prepare them for a devout hearing of it, and to beg of our Lord to make them
worthy hearers of his word, which can save their souls.
A. To move attention, and to signify what part of the Gospel he then reads.
Q. 982. Why doth the clerk answer, Gloria tibi Domine, Glory be to thee, O Lord?
A. To give the glory of the gospel to God, who hath of his mercy made us partakers of it.
Q. 983. Why then doth the priest sign the book with the sign of the cross?
A. To signify that the doctrine there delivered, appertains to the cross and passion of
Christ.
Q. 984. Why after this do both priest and people sign themselves with the cross in
three places?
A. They sign themselves on their foreheads, to signify they are not, nor will be ashamed
to profess Christ crucified: on their mouths to signify they will be ready with their
mouths, to confess unto salvation: and on their breast to signify that with their hearts they
believe unto justice.
Q. 985. Why at the end of the Gospel, do they sign their breast again with the sign
of the cross?
A. That the Devil may not steal the seed of God’s word out of their hearts.

Thanks!

Though I guess that begs the question of why the Epistle is read from the south side

 

[stmaria]

=

Lazerlike42;3653118]Well, they weren’t always read a second time in the vernacular, were they?

Good question. Never thought about that. Seems that they woud have been. The sermon would have been about the readings of the day, I would think.
COUNCIL OF TRENT
CHAPTER VIII
THE MASS MAY NOT BE CELEBRATED IN THE VERNACULAR. ITS MYSTERIES TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE PEOPLE
Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue. Wherefore, the ancient rite of each Church, approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being everywhere retained, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, or <the little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it unto them,>[19] the holy council commands pastors and all who have the that they, either themselves or through others, explain frequently during the celebration of the mass some of the things read during the mass, and that among other things they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on Sundays and festival days."

The above would have been explained in the vernacular. It would make sense to read the Epistle and Gospel to the congregation in the vernacular.

 

[Lazerlike42]

=
Good question. Never thought about that. Seems that they woud have been. The sermon would have been about the readings of the day, I would think.
COUNCIL OF TRENT
CHAPTER VIII
THE MASS MAY NOT BE CELEBRATED IN THE VERNACULAR. ITS MYSTERIES TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE PEOPLE
Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue. Wherefore, the ancient rite of each Church, approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being everywhere retained, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, or <the little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it unto them,>[19] the holy council commands pastors and all who have the that they, either themselves or through others, explain frequently during the celebration of the mass some of the things read during the mass, and that among other things they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on Sundays and festival days."

The above would have been explained in the vernacular. It would make sense to read the Epistle and Gospel to the congregation in the vernacular.

Right, but the question is probably a bit deeper than that. For example, Latin would have been the “vernacular” when the Pope was saying Mass at St. Peter’s. We’d also have to figure out how far back the orientation during the readings went. Were they still read in those directions way back when Latin was the vernacular everywhere?

In any case, even if this theory is correct, what would be the symbolism of reading them facing these other directions in the Latin in the first place, if indeed the readings are supposed to be God’s speaking to the faithful? I can’t fathom any idea why the lessons would be read back to God!

 

[AJV]

=
Good question. Never thought about that. Seems that they woud have been. The sermon would have been about the readings of the day, I would think.
COUNCIL OF TRENT
CHAPTER VIII
THE MASS MAY NOT BE CELEBRATED IN THE VERNACULAR. ITS MYSTERIES TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE PEOPLE
Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue. Wherefore, the ancient rite of each Church, approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being everywhere retained, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, or <the little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it unto them,>[19] the holy council commands pastors and all who have the that they, either themselves or through others, explain frequently during the celebration of the mass some of the things read during the mass, and that among other things they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on Sundays and festival days."

The above would have been explained in the vernacular. It would make sense to read the Epistle and Gospel to the congregation in the vernacular.

It was not actually so common. Partly because, before the late 19th century, the main preaching on Scripture was done at retreats and missions. The Sunday sermon was more often on moral or doctrinal topics. Thus re-reading Scripture was not necessarily part of the sermon. Until the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the sermon itself was also not mandatory unless it was laid down in particular law (e.g. by a decree of some Synod, or Council, or bishop) . Even the 1917 provides that a bishop might exempt from preaching on some Sundays and major feasts.

The same also applied to the Epistle and Gospel, but separately. For example, in 19th century America, Baltimore laid down that the Gospel had to be re-read in the vernacular, but did not require this of the Epistle. Baltimore III also required a five minute homily. IIRC the Synod of Westminster had similar regulations for England

 

[peary]

I’m hoping somebody can explain this to me.

My understanding of the Mass - in particular the very precise structure of the Pian Missal, is that it creates a dialogue between God and the faithful through the intercession of the priest.

The priest begins by approaching God at the foot of the altar, and then he and the people ask God the pardon of their sins in the confetior, and then the Collect is offered to God. After this, The Father speaks to the people through the Epistle and the Psalm, Christ speaks to them through the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit does so through the sermon. Then, the people respond by assenting to all that God has said in the Credo, and the priest offers the Holy Sacrifice. God responds by giving Communion to the people, and the people manifest this familial gift through the Our Father before the priest finally offers God’s blessing and the Mass is over.

So I don’t understand why the Epistle and Gospel are not read facing the people. In the Canon, the priest is acting as intercessor for the people as they go to God. He offers Sacrifice to Him, and so the ad orientem posture makes wonderful sense to me. Yet in the Lessons, God is supposed to be speaking to the people. So why are they not read towards the people?

Correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that the Epistle is read ad orientem, and the Gospel is read facing the side. Or perhaps they are both ad orientem. I don’t currently recall.

As long as we’re on the subject, I am also curious what the symbolism is of moving the book to the other side of the altar for the Gospel reading.

From what I remember of the LM, the priest of our parish at the time first read the Gospel in Latin from the altar, then, he turned around while one of the altar boys held it and read it in English. At least, that is how it was done in the late 50s/early 60s at our church.