Why has the altar changed?

[figs]

The implication there is that “absolutely everybody was so happy” with the arrival of versus populum tables. That was, of course, not the case. Trust me when I say not “everybody” was all that thrilled. And we never will be.

I have to agree with you!
It was a heartbreaking time. One I’ll never forget and wished never happened.

 

[clem456]

Does anyone believe the priest faces the congregation so that he may entertain them? Or exalt them over and above the Eucharist? Or that he may detract from what is occurring on the altar?
If one believes that, erroneously, who’s problem is that? Is it the Church’s problem? The priest’s?
Is it the responsibility of the laity to understand what is happening at Mass, and give our assent to the faith ? Or do changes in the form of the Mass exempt us from holding fast to the faith, and give us cause to reflexively object?

 

[benjohnson]

I agree but in today’s society you can’t even reintroduce a “Kyrie eleison” or “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus” into the liturgy (or a conversation, for that matter) without someone getting upset. I feel for the pastor, who BTW runs a Catholic school and gives well-researched sermons.

Really??

That’s a shame! Both are part of our service, about a third of the time we use Latin. We’ve been taught that Scantus is considered the oldest part of the liturgy.

 

[Timothysis]

Does anyone believe the priest faces the congregation so that he may entertain them? Or exalt them over and above the Eucharist? Or that he may detract from what is occurring on the altar?
If one believes that, erroneously, who’s problem is that? Is it the Church’s problem? The priest’s?
Is it the responsibility of the laity to understand what is happening at Mass, and give our assent to the faith ? Or do changes in the form of the Mass exempt us from holding fast to the faith, and give us cause to reflexively object?

This is a good point. I have always experienced a priest facing the congregation since I can remember and never once did I ever think that he was “performing” for the congregation, and this from the point of view of a 6 or 7 year old.

 

[FAB]

To those who have questions - please watch these two videos, I’m sure most of your questions will be answered:

Weapons of Mass Destruction - Part I

Weapons of Mass Destruction - Part II

~Liza

Misleading propaganda as usual.

 

[FAB]

Hi I was wondering now in most church’s or at least since Vatican to the altar now faces the people not the preist if you see what I mean. , so why is this ?

Thanks chuck

short answer is after the word, the sacrafice at the altar in the center of focus for the mass. In facing the people, the people share and become part of the celbration of the sacrafice as active participants.

 

[lizaanne]

Does anyone believe the priest faces the congregation so that he may entertain them? Or exalt them over and above the Eucharist? Or that he may detract from what is occurring on the altar?

Depending on the priest - yes. A very small percentage, but yes, there are some who feel they are the focus of the action at the altar.

If one believes that, erroneously, who’s problem is that? Is it the Church’s problem? The priest’s?

How do you know that it is “erroneously”, if one has experienced it personally? That is quite a bold claim to make, since you can’t possibly know what every person has ever experienced or known.

Yes - it is the priest’s problem. Who else’s could it possibly be?

Is it the responsibility of the laity to understand what is happening at Mass, and give our assent to the faith ? Or do changes in the form of the Mass exempt us from holding fast to the faith, and give us cause to reflexively object?

The priest is responsible for teaching his people. Christ did not say “feed My sheep” and expect the priest to only present Holy Eucharist and just walk away from any other needs. If a priest is not teaching his people, he is missing a massive opportunity to bring souls closer to holiness, and therefore, closer to heaven.

Not sure what your point is.

~Liza

 

[clem456]

Depending on the priest - yes. A very small percentage, but yes, there are some who feel they are the focus of the action at the altar.

How do you know that it is “erroneously”, if one has experienced it personally? That is quite a bold claim to make, since you can’t possibly know what every person has ever experienced or known.

Yes - it is the priest’s problem. Who else’s could it possibly be?

The priest is responsible for teaching his people. Christ did not say “feed My sheep” and expect the priest to only present Holy Eucharist and just walk away from any other needs. If a priest is not teaching his people, he is missing a massive opportunity to bring souls closer to holiness, and therefore, closer to heaven.

Not sure what your point is.

~Liza

“”**Does anyone believe **the priest faces the congregation **so that **he may entertain them? Or exalt them over and above the Eucharist? Or that he may detract from what is occurring on the altar?""
My point is, the Church does not teach any of these things,yet you commonly hear objections to the Mass form to this effect. Certainly, there may be a stray priest here and there who believes something prideful about himself, but that has always been the case independent of Mass form. Some culpability of the priest does not change the sacrament. The believer has a responsibility to know what the faith is, to know what is happening at the Sacrifice of the Mass. If the believer is focused on some aspect of his own entertainment or imagines some position of eminence because of the orientation of the priest, then he/she would have an erroneous idea of what is happening at Mass, would they not?

I’m not debating the priest’s responsibility to teach properly or follow the particular rubric, that would be another issue perhaps.

 

[lizaanne]

The believer has a responsibility to know what the faith is, to know what is happening at the Sacrifice of the Mass. If the believer is focused on some aspect of his own entertainment or imagines some position of eminence because of the orientation of the priest, then he/she would have an erroneous idea of what is happening at Mass, would they not?

I agree - to an extent. If someone is attending a parish where the priest does not correct misunderstandings, and in fact, perpetuates them, then how is someone to know what their priest (whom they may trust and love very much) is steering them wrong?

I got into a huge discussion with a woman who went through Catholic school her entire life, including university. She was taught extremely wrong things about the faith, but because she was taught these things by people she trusted to know better, and is now learning she was taught in error, she feels entirely betrayed by the entire Church!! We are still trying to talk her down from the edge of leaving the faith because of this massive betrayal, but it’s a long hard fight against many years of subtle lack of proper catechisis. And this woman is no dummy - she is extremely bright and educated, and makes very good arguments. But she has been taught such things like the all male priesthood is bad — by sisters she trusted. She believed them, and bought into their line of garbage.

So – the ultimate responsibility falls to the priest to ensure his people are being properly fed.

Christ said “feed my sheep”. Not just give them an appetizer and let them figure out the rest.

~Liza

 

[CaptCrunch73]

Certainly Cardinal Raymond Burke the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura thinks things went a little too far in the Missal of Pope Paul VI. I do find it interesting that in the following interview while Cardinal Burke is discussing how things went too far in the post concicliar changes to the liturgy a priest facing the people is shown.

The call of beauty

That’s certainly my impression, others may not agree; watch for yourself.

 

[Actaeon]

Vatican II did not "require’ the change of the priest from FACING the Altar to
Facing the People. That was done by people’s own voluntary decision without usually asking the Holy See’s permission and became WIDESPREAD and accepted.

There is no “sin” in it, but the Old way did have a valid reason behind it:

Historically, Christians faced EAST when praying the Divine Liturgy, the Mass.
The altar was at the east end of the church, and the priest, leading the people,
faced EAST, toward the altar, during most parts of the Mass.

sacredarchitecture.org/articles/the_eschatological_dimension_of_church_architecture/

Actually, that is only half of the story. The first churches were all built with the altar in the west and the mass was celebrated versus populum. This was based on Jewish synagogue architecture of the time, in which the sanctuary faced east (or jerusalem, depending on the tradition in question). In the masses, the people would face the priest, and then for the consecration they would turn and face the east.

In time (circa the 6th - 8th century), churches were constructed with the altar in the west, with the justification that this was a symbol of unity and “the priesthood of the faithful”. Logistically, it might have been easier for the priest to turn around and face east than for the entire congregation.

The notion that the priest was symbolically “leading the people to God” is a romantic one, but it is also false… all written justifications of the change seem to point to the idea of unity and emphasizing the priesthood of all the faithful, not the priest as the sole leader at the head of the crowd. The people faced east because that was the traditional view of where Jesus was supposed to return from, that was it… and anyone familiar with Jewish theology knows that you don’t approach Elijah in the east, but rather that celebrations are held in the view that Elijah will approach YOU from the East… putting even more to rest the idea that the mass somehow represents movement with the priest at the front.

Personally, I prefer the priest facing the people, not because WE are the focus of worship, lord no, but because I can hear him better when he is reciting the prayers of the mass, and I can see the consecration occuring much more clearly etc. I’ve been to the Latin mass, which is BEAUTIFUL, where the priest faces the East, and during the consecration he has to hold the host WAAAAY up in the air for the congregation to be able to offer an act of adoration and be able to see it.

For those reasons, I prefer the new way. But the Church never “required” this.

The fact that it is not REQUIRED is certainly correct, and I agree with you that I appreciate being faced by the priest because I can hear and see the consecration going on. At the same time, I would point out that there is an associated downside to this: that priests sometimes trip on their own tongues, or forget a minor detail here and there. When the priest faces away from the altar, the people cannot see this, and rarely can they hear him speaking… so the focus is rightly on the awesomeness of the consecration. When the priest FACES the people, all his actions and words are exposed, and I fear that some people occasionally use this as an opportunity to play a game of “gotcha” with the priest and scream abuse over very minor errors or slips of the tongue.

Is either way BETTER? No, not really. Both changes (to ad orientem and back to versus populum) were institutied using the same logic… so it is likely that the associated value has less to do with some objective “right way” and more to do with contemporary attitudes towards what constitutes an inclusive unity and universal priesthood (originally that we all needed to face east to be universally included and now that we all face the altar to be universally included). There are trade offs either way.