The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionOkla. bishop no longer faces people at Mass
Aug. 21, 2009
Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, Okla., faces the crucifix on the altar as he celebrates Mass in early June at Holy Family Cathedral.
Saying he wants "to recover a more authentic Catholic worship," Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, Okla., has announced that he will return to the ancient custom of ad orientem, in which the presider at Mass does not face the people in the pews, but turns to face the altar.
Having the priest face the congregation was one of the major liturgical changes brought to the Mass during the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Slattery said this change had had unforeseen, negative consequences that he hoped to counter by reverting to the ad orientem tradition.
As Slattery’s decision became widely publicized in late August, Vatican officials were downplaying a report that major liturgical reforms are being considered by Pope Benedict XVI, including a curb on the practice of receiving Communion in the hand.
Slattery explained his reasoning in the September issue of the Eastern Oklahoma Catholic, his diocesan magazine.
He wrote that ad orientem, which literally means "toward the East" or the direction from which Jesus would return for the Second Coming, was the liturgical norm for nearly 18 centuries.
Slattery wrote, "It's incorrect to think that only the priest offers Mass. All the faithful share in the offering, even though the priest has a unique role. He stands 'in the person of Christ,' the historic head of the Mystical Body, so that, at Mass, it is the whole body of Christ -- head and members together that make the offering.
"From ancient times, the position of the priest and the people reflected this understanding of the Mass ... Everyone -- celebrant and congregation -- faced the same direction, since they were united with Christ in offering to the Father Christ's unique, unrepeatable and acceptable sacrifice."
He continued: "In the last 40 years, however, this shared orientation was lost. Now the priest and the people have become accustomed to facing in opposite directions. The priest faces the people while the people face the priest, even though the eucharistic prayer is directed to the Father and not to the people.
"This innovation was introduced after the Vatican Council, partly to help the people understand the liturgical action of the Mass by allowing them to see what was going on, and partly as an accommodation to contemporary culture where people who exercise authority are expected to face directly the people they serve, like a teacher sitting behind her desk."
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
This change brought by Vatican II, he wrote, had "unforeseen and largely negative effects," including:
- "It was a serious rupture with the church's ancient tradition."
- "It can give the appearance that the priest and the people were engaged in a conversation about God, rather than the worship of God."
- "It places an inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant by placing him on a kind of liturgical stage."
Slattery said that he will use the ad orientem position when he celebrates Mass at his cathedral. He did not order his priests to follow his example, but he does note that "Benedict has spoken repeatedly of the importance of celebrating Mass ad orientem," as part of his urging Catholics "to draw upon the ancient liturgical practice of the church to recover a more authentic Catholic worship."
In late August the Italian newspaper Il Giornale reported that the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments had sent Benedict a report in April recommending concrete steps toward the "reform of the reform" in liturgy, according to Catholic News Service.
The newspaper article said the congregation proposed to promote a greater sense of the sacred in liturgy, recover the use of the Latin language in celebrations, and reformulate parts of the Roman Missal to end abuses and experimentation.
Responding to the article, Vatican spokesman Fr. Ciro Benedettini said Aug. 24, "At the moment, there are no institutional proposals for a modification of the liturgical books currently in use."
Vatican sources told Catholic News Service that the worship congregation did not, in fact, suggest a program of liturgical change, but simply forwarded to the pope some considerations from its discussions focusing on eucharistic adoration, the theme of the plenary session.
Some individual members may have added opinions on other liturgical issues, but they in no way constituted formal proposals, one source said.
The article in Il Giornale said one idea being studied by the worship congregation was a return to celebrating Mass with the priest facing ad orientem
The Vatican sources told CNS that this issue, however, was not discussed by the congregation at its plenary.
Writing to Oklahoma Catholics, Slattery said his reverting to ad orientem "ought not to be misconstrued as the bishop 'turning his back on the faithful,' as if I am being inconsiderate or hostile. Such an interpretation misses the point that, by facing in the same direction, the posture of the celebrant and the congregation make explicit the fact that we journey together to God."
[Dennis Coday is an NCR staff writer. His e-mail address is dcoday@ncronline.org. Reporting from Catholic News service is included in this article.]
Read the bishop's column: ad orientem: Revival of ancient rite brings multiple advantages, some misperceptions.
No doubt many will perceive
No doubt many will perceive the bishop being "inconsiderate or hostile" by this action. It simply goes to show how little the laity understands about the true and authentic focus of the Eucharist. Pope Benedict XVI reminded us of this focus when he placed candlesticks and a standing crucifix in the center of the papal altar, reminding him, and us, of that the Mass is about worshipping and adoring Christ.
Pope John Paul II, the Great and Pope Benedict both celebrated their private daily Masses ad orientem in their private chapel. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal presumes that the priest is not facing the assembly, since, at various times, it instructs the priest to "face the people" for this prayer or that greeting. Finally, the Second Vatican Council never instructed the celebrant of the Mass to face the people, rather Sacrosanctum Concilium simply reiterated the discipline that there should be a free-standing altar to allow the priest to walk in a complete circle as he incenses the altar. The practice of facing the people during Mass was a discipline introduced, not by the Council, but by that fantasy often called the "Spirit of Vatican II".
Bishop Slattery, in taking this action, is correct. He is doing this to remind the people that the Mass is not a talk show with the priest presiding over it like Letterman or Leno. The Mass is about adoring the Lord, and bishop and assembly alike facing the same direction, facing the liturgical east, will remind and drive home to everyone Who is real focus of our worship. God bless Bishop Slattery. I pray that other bishops and priests will follow his lead and return to the liturgy the beauty, majesty, mystery and proper focus that has been missing for the last forty or so years.
I map googled the cathedral.
I map googled the cathedral. It is in a bit east/north east and west/southwest axis. When the bishop is in an AD POPULUM position he is facing EAST/northeast (orient), WHEN HE IS AD ORIENTEM HE IS NOW FACING WEST/SOUTHWEST!!! So much for the "orientem" excuse. As far as "liturgical east" I guess that's "make believe east". The good bishop and his Trad enablers need to buy a compass!
You are not smart. Google
You are not smart.
Google "Liturgical East." It is different than the direction East.
It's a symbolic gesture- facing to the East (to the rising SUN) is symbolic. Similarly, the priest faces toward the SON in the tabernacle because Mass is directed at Him, not at YOU.
Learn a bit of fact before commenting, please. I wish this writer would've done the same. What a dreadful column.
Matt, before 1571 the
Matt, before 1571 the tabernacle was everywhere except in the apse. So your argument of facing the tabernacle is a smoke screen, the priest didn't face it before 1571. As far as a symbolic gesture it's facing east but not east doesn't make sense. So now Bishop Slattery is facing (real)west when he is at orientem which is his symbolic east (make believe East)! You are a bit defensive when you attack me personally... and it shows.
Matt, you are the one who
Matt, you are the one who needs to learn a "bit of fact." The Mass is directed at the Father, through, with and in the Son and in the power of the Holy Spirit. The reserved sacrament in the tabernacle is for the dying as Viaticum and shut-ins. Study some liturgical theology.
Matt, you stated to another
Matt, you stated to another reader, "You are not smart. Google "Liturgical East." It is different than the direction East. It's a symbolic gesture- facing to the East (to the rising SUN) is symbolic. Similarly, the priest faces toward the SON in the tabernacle because Mass is directed at Him, not at YOU."
It is actually not the tabernacle that the priest faces, as a symbolic gesture; it is the altar itself. Why? Because the Mass is a memorial of Jesus sacrificing His own life on our behalf. The Mass commemorates Jesus' life, death, and resurrection - the Paschal Mystery, which we are baptized into; the Mass has been named the "unbloody Sacrifice" for this reason. Jesus has been referred to as the "Sacrificial Lamb". There is a direct connection between the Passover and the Eucharist. In some Catholic parishes, the altar is placed in the center of the Church - it is in our Cathedral where I reside - to honor the celebration of the Eucharist as the center and summit of our Catholic faith. The tabernacle's purpose is to reserve the Blessed Sacrament for distribution to the sick and the dying; the reason the tabernacle was removed from the altar with the changes of the Second Vatican Council was that its central location on the altar detracted symbolically from the Eucharistic Liturgy and action taking place on the altar. The central location of the altar is historically the most ancient form in celebrating Eucharist - which is why the change of the priest facing the people was introduced during Vatican II.
How do I know these things? I possess a BA in Roman Catholic Theology and a Roman Catholic Master of Divinity Degree, which included ancient, medieval, and contemporary Church history as well as Canon Law and Liturgy.
You found your answer in a google search, and then attacked another reader? Not only are you more misinformed than the person whom you attacked, but you behaved in an un-Christlike manner. It does not really matter what your theological views are - if you feel the need to attack someone or mock them because they do not have the same viewpoint as yourself, then your own views are meaningless - and I believe most readers would share my feelings regarding this.
If you really want to engage in a discussion, you may want to do more thorough research yourself. And if you disagree with someone here on this discussion page, you need to treat them as you would treat Jesus Christ Himself.
Take care.
The earliest churches were
The earliest churches were built with the axis running west to east, but in the last few centuries, that has not been the case. This is because the Church understands that "liturgical east" is the symbolic direction from which Christ will return. Bishop Slattery facing liturgical east is a recognition of that tradition, as well as a symbolic reminder that Christ is the focus of the Mass and that we are all, clergy and laity, on the same journey to Him.
Further, the ad orientem axis takes the attention off of the priest celebrant, and thus we can focus all of our attention on the Lord. It also insures that the priest celebrant will not be distracted by the congregation, but will be able to focus all of his attention on the Lord.
Truly we are blessed to live in such times as the Church reawakens her traditions and her ancient beliefs and as she continues the AUTHENTIC reforms of the second Vatican Council.
"Further, the ad orientem
"Further, the ad orientem axis takes the attention off of the priest celebrant, and thus we can focus all of our attention on the Lord"
What Lord, you can't see him with the priest blocking your view. Furthermore, the priest is in "persona Christi", so we need to take our attention of the person of Christ. Instead, focus on that pretty chasuble that were facing while God is on the back wall of the apse. Makes perfect sense.
Then, if the symbolic east is
Then, if the symbolic east is wherever the priest faces then he can face the assembly and that can be the symbolic east.
That misses the whole point
That misses the whole point of common orientation. The positioning of the priest and ministers versus the congregation is not all that different from the position of the commander of troops in a military formation. The commander stands at the head of the formation. When rendering honors and reporting to his higher command, he faces front, which is akin to liturgical east. When communicating with the body of troops, he faces the troops. It is proper that the distinction be made in orientation as to what is "versus Deum" and "versus Populum." Since the bulk of what happens at Mass is directed towards God, it is only fitting that the Priest and people would face God in the same orientation (liturgical East). Having the Priest face the people when he is leading prayer to God, ESPECIALLY during the Eucharistic Prayers, is misleading, God's omnipresence notwithstanding. By re-introducing the ANCIENT PRACTICE of a common "ad orientem" orientation by both Priest and congregation during prayers and petitions to the Godhead, we put right in our minds the meaning of worship as being directed toward God (verticality) versus the appearance that the Mass as a mere meal and the horizontality of that act.
If the good bishop were
If the good bishop were simply to have the people join him at the altar as was done in the ancient basilicas, they all would be facing the altar whether it be located east or west. We may be the Church Militant, but we are not the military.
gag!
gag!
Ouch! I bet Dr. Dale's
Ouch! I bet Dr. Dale's comment is one that he wishes he could retract.
Which one Stu?
Which one Stu?
St Peter's Basilica in Rome
St Peter's Basilica in Rome has its apse in the west. When the clergy there face east, they face the congregation. I hope they do.
Why shouldn't the congregation in St Peter's also face the east? True, it would mean turning their backs on the clergy in the sanctuary, but of course that would not be any measure of disrespect or dissociation. On the contrary, it would surely be an expression of unity in worship.
Aside from St Peter's and Tulsa, some congregations number so few that it's small wonder the priest doesn't want to face the little remnant.
The recent article published
The recent article published by the National Catholic Reporter Okla. bishop no longer faces people at Mass produced a series of long drawn out and downright nasty responses, which reminded me how bitter and militant some Catholics have become among themselves about their faith. Ironically the argument was not centered on the bishop’s decision to return to the Latin mass, but rather about the liturgically correct compass direction that the celebrant must face.
If we recognized that God created our ever expanding universe we would quickly come to the realization that there are no compass points beyond the boundaries of this earth. Hence, God exists beyond our finite understandings and beliefs. (I imagine that this fact might also cause our Muslim brothers and sisters some difficulties or concerns.)
A compass point in space therefore exist only relative to the position of each individual observer. Is it not comforting to realize that God is everywhere and we need not worry about where to find him?
The bishop’s argument is of course based on a period of Church history when it was believed that our sun and the earth were the center of the universe. Early challengers to this belief such as Galileo paid a heavy price for those views. Despite waning support and heavy losses in world- wide attendance the Church seems to want to return to a pre-Vatican II period. Or perhaps, a period when the Church exercised a more powerful influence on the shape of the world. Regardless of its intent and desire, however noble and holy that may be, it cannot hope to survive based on fixed and outdated models which do not reflect our modern understandings. If the Church is to be relevant it must reach beyond established boundaries.
Old Testament writers seem to have anticipated this problem long ago, when an Angel directed Elijah where to find God:
He said, ‘Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.’ Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence. 1 Kings 19:11-12
When we try to solve problems strictly based on worldly and outdated or prescribed norms we will often find ourselves in conflict with others and even ourselves. As adults we need to learn to find the God within and thereby trust ourselves. If I try to live my life based on that of another I will merely mimic a false idea of who I truly am – a unique and beloved son of God.
When there is so much distraction in our lives, so many false voices, so many superimposed dogmas and doctrines, it can be very difficult to locate God in the sheer silence. But now we can be sure that God resides deep in our hearts and in the heart of every human being. It is not a question of facing East or West, North or South, the wind or earthquake but a matter of listening for His gentle and silent Voice.
Amen.
Amen.
"It simply goes to show how
"It simply goes to show how little the laity understands about the true and authentic focus of the Eucharist"
This statement is sad. The person who said it, though having the right to, must be just as sad. What is really typical are pompous folk like that in the Church who look at the laity as 'lesser'. We know how you really feel. The only problem is, you perpetuate and enlarge the gulf between the clergy and the laity by turning your back to the people. You forget... the focus of the Eucharist may be Christ present on the altar but it is also a Holy Communion with the Church present through out time and space. Turning your back to the Church during Mass is impersonal. For a Church Universal all about relationship and a Triune God who is all about relationship during a time (Eucharist aka Holy Communion) which is also all about relationship... it is probably the most 'un-relationship-esque" thing to do.
If "Turning one's back to the
If "Turning one's back to the Church during Mass is impersonal", what do you say about turning one's back on the Eucharist present in the tabernacle?
"If "Turning one's back to
"If "Turning one's back to the Church during Mass is impersonal", what do you say about turning one's back on the Eucharist present in the tabernacle?"
The tabernacle is not behind the altar, so one would not be turning one's back to it. Go look and see...
With the priest and the laity
With the priest and the laity facing the same way--toward Christ--it becomes more of an equal posture before Christ rather than a greater and lesser stance.
I challenge you, if it is all
I challenge you, if it is all that equal then let all the assembly stand w/ the priest at the altar, as St.John Chrysostom said, the altar should be positioned so that the faithful may gather at all its sides. So... remove the altar rails and move the altar to the floor level of the nave at the transcept. However, that will NEVER HAPPEN because it is just a smoke screen to keep the laity out of it.
It's not about relationship
It's not about relationship "with" the congregation during Mass that's important- that you develop outside of the Mass during your daily lives. It's about the relationship of the Priest and Laity "together" facing God during the sacrifice of the Mass. How "un-relationship-esque" is turning your back away from the Bless Sacrament during Mass?
"Turning your back to the Church during Mass is impersonal." - How can a Priest who is praying with and for the congregation be turning his back on "The Church"? I think the "We Are Church" slogan has been promoted too many times without real understanding. We "are" part of the Body of Christ, which is the Church and our "turning to the Lord" reflects that, but together. Remember the Mass isn't a human sacrifice, it's divine. People need to learn to keep their human indiosyncracies (the back being an insult/offense to someone) out of it.
Ann in Toronto, on Aug. 24,
Ann in Toronto, on Aug. 24, 2009.
The very first liturgy was a meal---the Last Supper. The concept of it being a bloodless sacrifice, but the same as the sacrifice at Calvery did not come
into the Church until the Middle Ages---with a theological stance to propose it.
We are the Church---this is not just a slogan---but reality. The real transformation occurs when the people, who received Jesus in communion with him, carry him out to their homes, workplaces, schools, places of commerce---to others. Jesus, who lives in us, as his people, leaves the church for the world outside.
You stated that "people need to learn to keep their human indiosyncracies (the back being an insult/offense to someone) out of it". If the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity did not care for our human idiosyncracies or anything else human about us, Jesus would not have become a human being. Idiosyncracies are not sins---it is part and parcel of being human---and Jesus is the God-Man---like us in all things but sin.
Do you think that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his back turned to his friends? In many parts of the world---turning the back on someone, is an insult. And the 'good' Bishop needs to be told this over and over and over again.
What do you define as the
What do you define as the "Middle Ages"? When did they begin? I'm just curious when you think the first explicit references to the Eucharist as being "a bloodless sacrifice" came about. I mean, the Greek text of the gospels has Jesus saying "this is my body which IS BEING GIVEN UP for you" and "this is ... my blood which IS BEING POURED OUT for you." He spoke in the present tense!
Dear Jeff, In the scriptures,
Dear Jeff,
In the scriptures, the first explanation of Jesus and the Last Supper does not come from any Gospel---but from Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23-27). Paul was writing around 43-63 A.D. Mark's Gospel was the first one to be written (approx. 65-70 A.D). The others came out later.
Paul speaks the people coming as church to the Lord's Supper---nothing about it being the bloodless sacrifice of Calvery. In Paul's account, he states, that Jesus took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thatnks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
And with the cup he said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
Jesus is not referring to his death on a cross on Calvery---he is associating himself with the Pascal Meal---with the Lamb. This is what the people would have understood. Their whole background was about the Passover and the Passover meal---the blood of the Lamb that saved them. Jesus was seen as the sacrificed Lamb.
But the tie-in of the Meal with the Sacrifice of the Cross was not made until the fall of the Roman empire. I define the Middle Ages as beginning with the crowning of Charlemagne in 800 A.D. and continuing until about the 1370's when the Renaissance was began in Europe (the Renaissance started later in England---late 1500's-certainly 1600's).
The thoughts of dying on a cross---was so repugnant to Jewish minds---that those who died this way were thought to be cursed. It would be the same thing in our country, if we had pictures of an electric chair, or gas chamber, or a picture of a room where a lethel injection is administered, and we were told to consider ourselves Catholic by this sign and symbol. That is why Christians identified themselves with one another under persecution, by drawing a rough symbol of a fish---not a cross.
By the time of Charlemagne and later---the theologians were writing of the Meal and the bloodless Sacrifice of Calvery being ONE in the Liturgy, in the Mass.
For the Early Christian Church (under Roman domination) the term "The Meal" was used over and over again to describe the liturgy and the reception of the Eucharist.
Please also, keep in mind, that a great deal of editing of the Scriptures was done as: The scriptures were translated to Greek and later to the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. Then later, it was translated into German, English (King James Version) and other languages.
St. Paul does speak of the
St. Paul does speak of the Eucharist as being a participation in the blood and body of Christ, and he immediately follows that by bringing up the matter of Israelites "who eat the sacrifices [becoming] partners in the altar?" (1 Cor 10:18) Then he speaks of proclaiming the death of the Lord by participating in the Eucharist, and of the possibility of "profaning" the body and blood of the Lord. (cf. 1 Cor 11:26-27)
You said: Jesus is not referring to his death on a cross on Calvary -- he is associating himself with the Pascal Meal -- with the Lamb.
His very identification with the Paschal Lamb is necessarily an identification with a sacrificial death. You haven't convinced me that the Paschal Lamb association can be separated from the Calvary association, that Jesus (or Paul) was referring to one and not the other.
You said: "The thoughts of dying on a cross was so repugnant to Jewish minds that those who died this way were thought to be cursed. ... That is why Christians identified themselves with one another under persecution, by drawing a rough symbol of a fish not a cross."
Is that the only reason? Isn't the fish symbol (which is also a Greek acrostic) also a "safe" symbol, which outsiders would not necessarily associate with a crucified trouble-maker and his lingering followers?
Thank you, Ann for your ideas
Thank you, Ann for your ideas and concepts about this liturgical subject. I agree with you in all you say.
This is incorrect. The
This is incorrect.
The Didache, an ancient Church document, as well as many early Church writers and Fathers, called the Eucharist a Sacrifice.
The 'ad orientem' posture of the priest is common to both East and (until recently) West. It has an eschatological meaning. Pope Benedict teaches that it is toward the Cross that we all face. Not the Blessed Sacrament. That is why a Cross (crucifix) must always be near or on the altar.
The Bishop is returning to an ancient, read early Church practice. To call the Eucharist a "meal" is quite correct. But it is not only that. Much, much more.
The people in the pew in
The people in the pew in front of me always give me a funny look when I ask them to not turn their back on me during worship.
But then they would have
But then they would have their backs turned on whoever may be in the pew ahead of them. Clearly the future is in replacing pews with spinning barstools, if only the bishops would stop talking about abortion and support this notion.
One of the most meaningful
One of the most meaningful masses I've ever attended was in the rectory of the school my daughter teaches at. The chapel's heat was out so Father took us into the living room where we all sat in a semi-circle. The coffee table was used as an alter and the celebrants' backs were to a roaring fire. We can't, for practical and traditional reasons, always have such intimate masses, but don't knock them.
You wrote: "This statement is
You wrote:
"This statement is sad. The person who said it, though having the right to, must be just as sad. What is really typical are pompous folk like that in the Church who look at the laity as 'lesser'. ......... Turning your back to the Church during Mass is impersonal."
To be served by the priest makes us "lesser"?
Bishop Slattery is, indeed,
Bishop Slattery is, indeed, being very much "inconsiderate" in deciding to "face East" in presiding at the Mass, Novus Ordo or otherwise. The earliest liturgies stemmed from communal meals at which everybody present could have seen his/her neighbor's face. The meal was a "coming together" of family. The perfect meal, of course, would have been the Last Supper.
If the good bishop wants to be faithful with the Church's ancient tradition, he should invite the laity (or at least a representative portion of them) to stand by his side in semicircular fashion around the altar as he presides at the sacred liturgy. This "coming together" was used in the ancient basilicas before the laity would eventually be relegated to the nave of the church and the altars moved to the apse, well away from the laity. If Bishop Slattery is concerned about preserving this ancient tradition based ultimately on pagan tradition, so be it, but he should not by any means be "pickey-choosey" about what to use and what not to use from his ancient predecessors among the ordained. Will this bishop be genuinely faithful to ancient practice in this regard? I'll believe it when I see it.
The great liturgist Adrian Fortescue, who wrote an entry on "Liturgy" for publication in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), noted that "[a]ll ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to be done for convenience." Is "facing East" essential or helpful to Catholic worship? No.
In a comment a few days ago on COMMONWEAL's blogsite (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=4104), author Rita Ferrone, who wrote LITURGY: SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM (REDISCOVERING VATICAN II), Paulist Press, 2007, shared the following observations:
"...[T]he changing of direction of the celebrant at the altar did not begin at Vatican II. As early as the 1920s, some important figures in the liturgical movement experimented with this form, including Romano Guardini (a favorite inspiration to Pope Benedict, by the way) in Germany and Pius Parsch (an Augustinian) in Austria. It was a major success. It was perceived as profoundly moving and a kind of giant pastoral step forward toward the sort of active participation of the people which had been the desire of Pius X and indeed everyone in the movement....Before [Vatican II] ended, the permission to celebrate in this way was extended officially by the First Instruction on the Right Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Inter Oecumenici, 1964. This document instructed that altars were to be freestanding so that the priest could walk around the altar (as when using incense) and face the people. It's worth noting that the documents never said you had to celebrate this way. But this change, like the move to the vernacular, won by a landslide. The Church wanted to do it..."
Come to think of it, if Bishop Slattery really wants to be faithful to tradition, he should reinstitute the use of Koine Greek in his liturgies since this language was the original language of the Christians in Rome. Ironically, when Pope Damasus mandated use of Latin in his diocese, it was because Latin was now the vernacular language of his flock, who no longer understood Greek. The hierarchy, of course, would retain Latin as the official language of the Church, including its liturgy, even though it eventually died.
Except for elderly and infirm priests who can no longer preside at public liturgies, I have a very real problem with so-called "private Masses." The liturgy, by definition, is a work of the people assembled in community (Jesus did not eat by himself at the Last Supper!).
While the Mass is "about adoring the Lord" as Mr. Green states, it is --- properly speaking --- a communal experience. As such, the presider should face the people to facilitate sacred communication and active participation of the faithful. The altar and the Lord's sacramental presence on it are our proper focus. Anything less is a disservice to the People of God.
Bravo Joseph, Bravo! Well
Bravo Joseph, Bravo! Well said!
St. Peters in the Vatican, St Paul Outside the Walls, St. Cecelia, St. Suzanna and most altars in the catacombs were free standing and the priest faced the people. Almost 50% of the churches were this way. That is what I have found historically and Archbishop John R. Quinn concurs.
And, the communal aspect of
And, the communal aspect of the Mass is maintained when we all recognize that we are on the same journey to the Lord together. This is one of the supreme points made by facing liturgical east. The Church maybe "wanted to do it (face the people)", but it seems as if the Church is recognizing that this particular liturgical experiment or innovation did not work. Far from making the liturgy more prayerful, it has done the opposite. In an effort to restore the sense of sacred and the sense of prayerfulness that should abound in the liturgy, it appears that Bishop Slattery and many of the newly ordained priests and seminarians are moving to restore what has been cast aside since the Council, including traditional sacred music (as opposed to the hymns in praise of how great we are that we have been subjected to), traditional sacred vestments ( know one priest who wears a traditional Roman -or "fiddleback"- at every Mass, and even Pope Benedict has returned to the use of such beautiful vestments for some liturgies), traditional language (see the beautiful new translations of the liturgy), traditional gestures and the use of the ad orientem posture at Mass. I welcome the return of such wonderful traditions in the liturgy and I will miss the "innovations" and "experiments" of the last forty years not at all.
Also, I might remind you that auricular confession was an innovation of the Church. I wonder if you would be so willing to return to the traditional celebration of that sacrament, making a confession in the presence of the entire community and doing public penance, and being excluded from participation in the liturgy until that penance is complete? I would not, but perhaps I am not as much of a traditionalist as you claim to be.
Mr. Green, when one worships
Mr. Green, when one worships at Mass, one does not go on a "journey." There is no need to face East. Indeed, as another blogger put it, Jesus is in the midst of the congregation. It would appear that the good bishop is preoccupied with facing away from Jesus in everyone's midst. Not good. And not respectful toward Jesus!
I myself prefer the privacy of the confessional. Auricular confession was a response --- and a good one, at that --- to the problem of folks understandably not wanting to confess their sins in public. Jesus, however, emphasized forgiveness, not confession, auricular or otherwise. Reconciliation was the community's response to dealing with former members who had left (or were expelled from) the community and desired readmission. Primitive Christians were creative back then, and there's no reason we cannot be creative today. Putting sin into categories (mortal vs. venial) was a human invention. For Jesus, however, the challenge/invitation/task is forgiveness, not how it is accomplished.
How do you know Mr. Clint
How do you know Mr. Clint that with the way the Eucharist is being celebrated today we (me and they excluding you)have lost the sense of the Sacred? If you and Bishop Slattery want another mode of celebrating it by going back to a PARTICULAR tradition go ahead. Only don't impose it on us who love the Eucharistic celebration in its present form. If there is something to be 'reformed' in the celebration today it is to give more stress on the communal that Joseph mentioned.
No Mr. Green, not
No Mr. Green, not 'iconsiderate or hostile', just irrelevant. You confuse tradition with traditionalism.
SOOOOO... Christ is coming
SOOOOO... Christ is coming from the East, the rising "son" in the East, it's not God the Father rising in the East, so we are offering Christ on the altar to Christ who is coming from the East? Where is God the Father? This breaks down the whole Trinitarian concept of offering Christ on the altar to God the Father. Also, it's "Standing toward the East", "standing" the other venerable tradition. The council of Nicaea forbade kneeling during liturgy. So I fully expect bishop Slattery to remove the kneelers in the cathedral when he is ad orientem.
The Divine Liturgy celebrates
The Divine Liturgy celebrates Christ's continual parousia while anticipating his eschatological parousia... a word which means both "presence" and "advent".
The Church -- East and West -- has been celebrating the Eucharistic liturgy facing the East for a VERY long time. In that time, some things (like Nicaea's liturgical regulation concerning kneeling) have come and gone, but facing East (generally speaking) lasted through the 20th century!
The kneeling regulation has
The kneeling regulation has not "come and gone" as you state. How so very convenient to dismiss the Council of Nicaea. The Eastern Orthodox church has never given up kneeling, not for 20 centuries. Neither has the Maronite Catholic Church (beautiful Liturgy if I might add) or the Byzantine Catholic church, Greek Catholic church, etc. It was always associated w/ facing East. There is so much emphasis here on tradition, but only the traditions that trads pick and choose, so very "cafeteria catholic".
I wrote ... never given up
I wrote ... never given up kneeling, I meant to write "never gave up standing and never knelt"
my error.
Mr. Green, the GIRM does make
Mr. Green, the GIRM does make clear that a free-standing altar is for celebrating while facing the people (paragraph 299 in the current version, paragraph 262 in the original). The rubrics that I have reviewed seem to state that the priest should "face the people," but this is only stated after there has been movement, such as when the priest has moved to the side of the altar to prepare for the canon. Taken in context, it doesn't pre-suppose that the priest is facing the altar. It is stated to ensure that the priest has turned his attention back to involving the people.
I find the statements on this board that the documents of the council didn't authorize these changes to be puzzling. Of course the council didn't work on the liturgy directly, it was a large work that required specialists ( see SC 25). The changes were authorized by the Commissions set up by the council, approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (until 1969 when it became Sacred Cong. for Divine Worship), and finally promulgated by Pope Paul VI. This is the normal chain of authority for changes in instruction. The council documents directed that a change would be made, but ordered the normal curial departments to carry it out.
There is nothing "liberal" in my statements. I understand those who want to correct abuses that have crept in to our practices. But abuses have always been there. Pre-Vatican II abuses were such that the priest was seen as representing the people before God. This allowed (encouraged) popular devotions during the Mass. This was brought home most recently by a certain Catholic cable channel; where immediately after the Motu Proprio allowing the 1962 Mass to be celebrated with a Congregation, guides for popular devotions during the mass were made available. Saying that the council never changed or called for change is revising history. I simply find a revisionist view untenable, when these documents have been published for over 40 years.
And I think that Jesus (who,
And I think that Jesus (who, as you may remember, said the first Mass) did not have his back to his Apostles, and said his Mass in the vernacular. Now, who is right here. Just because traditions were introduced and practiced for many years, does not mean that they should continue. Let's go back to the way Jesus introduced the Mass---aren't we doing that now? Let's go back to the way Jesus did everything and rid ourselves of the nonsense of poorly educated male celibates who are simply into themselves and not Jesus.
And Jesus also celebrated the
And Jesus also celebrated the First Eucharist reclining. Shall we remove the pews, put rugs on the floors of the churches and recline at mass?
I guess my point is that one can love and worship the Lord either looking at the back of the celebrant or at his face. While proper rubrics are important, what's in our hearts is even more so.
God bless.
Why reduce the essence of the
Why reduce the essence of the Eucharist to physical positions and orientations? Symbolisms are cultural. And how did Jesus and his disciples celebrate the first Eucharistic celebration?
"No doubt many will preceive
"No doubt many will preceive the bishop as being inconsiderate or hostile by this action. It simply shows how little the laity understands about the authentic focus of the Eucharist". With forming judgements even before the argument is presented, You seem pretty eager to ponce. For me, the direction of the priest makes no difference in my "understanding of the authentic focus of the Eucharist". The Eucharist remains the sacred body of our savior and I can honor that either way the priest chooses to face. Truly, it will make no difference in any aspect of my relation to the holy sacrafice of the mass. I know some may have a preference for one way or another, I understand that. But, ultimately I don't think it should be an issue interfearing in one's response to the authenticity of the Eucharist.
Catholics in my country
Catholics in my country (Philippines) have experienced and still experience the "beauty, majesty, mystery and proper focus" of the Eucharist in its current 'spirit of Vatican II' mode. Our sunday masses all over the country are well attended. Don't be condescending on us lay Catholics.
the true and authentic focus
the true and authentic focus of the Eucharist--or what we used to call Holy Communion--is that a miraculous relationship exists between human beings and god and that this is celebrated daily and sundays at the mass. The rest is people playing games with how to be a more perfect christian than you are. Jesus had a word for people like that.
This poor bishop doesn't have
This poor bishop doesn't have a clue! Should we start repainting all of those pictures of the Last Supper with Christ having his back to the viewers? In the early Church, the Eucharist was most often celebrated with everybody in attendance gathered around the table of celebration with the Presbyter shoulder to shoulder with all the others in the community. The joyous occasion of celebrating the Eucharist with all other Catholics and the Presbyter "in community with Christ" is lost with this bishop's back to us.
How do you explain paragraph
How do you explain paragraph 299 in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which states: The altar should be built apart from teh wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible."
It's about time! I've been
It's about time! I've been entertained enough by priests who aren't very good at entertaining. How did the celebrant get to be on a stage? If the people truly participate in the liturgy, why do we place the priest on a pedestal? Let's all face the Father as we offer His Son in sacrifice. Perhaps the people will rediscover their true role in the sacrifice - a true expression of the priesthood of the people.
You must be kidding!!.. I
You must be kidding!!.. I thought it was bad when I attended a Mass where the priest lined 5 gold candle sticks on the altar to "hide" behind for the Eucharistic prayers. At least if you tried, you could see him. Why is it that we have to go back 100 years or more and experience the "hidden" Eucharist. It is truly the Gift of the Spirit to hear those beautiful prayers, sing the response and share the moment of elevation and the words "This is Jesus, the Lamb of God, who comes to take away the sins of the World. Happy are we who are called to this joyous and sacred meal." It's hard to imagine that happening with the celebrant's back to me.
Was it a Catholic Mass? The
Was it a Catholic Mass? The words "called to this joyous and sacred meal" aren't located in any Catholic Missal that I know of.
First, this change occurred
First, this change occurred 40 years ago, not 100.
Second, the part you mention has always been said facing the people (along with "the Lord be with you", "the mass is ended", and other priest-congregation dialogs). It's not like the priest is going to be saying the entire mass without ever glancing at the congregation.
Don't look at it as the priest turning his back to the people, but rather the priest and the people are once again facing the same direction in prayer, as they had been doing for over 1000 years.
I prefer the older ad populum
I prefer the older ad populum during the first 1000 years, not the ad orientem during the second 1000 years.
I don't know where you're
I don't know where you're getting your history from.
Here is from the 1996 instruction Pater Incomprehensibilis:
107. Prayer facing the east
Ever since ancient times, it has been customary in the prayer of the Eastern Churches to prostrate oneself to the ground, turning toward the east; the buildings themselves were constructed such that the altar would face the east. Saint John of Damascus explains the meaning of this tradition: "It is not for simplicity nor by chance that we pray turned toward the regions of the east (...). Since God is intelligible light (1 Jn. 1:5), and in the Scripture, Christ is called the Sun of justice (Mal. 3:20) and the East (Zech. 3:8 of the LXX), it is necessary to dedicate the east to him in order to render him worship. The Scripture says: 'Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed' (Gen. 2:8). (...) In search of the ancient homeland and tending toward it, we worship God. Even the tent of Moses had its curtain veil and propitiatory facing the east. And the tribe of Judah, in as much as it was the most notable, encamped on the east side (cf. Nm. 2:3). In the temple of Solomon, the Lord's gate was facing the east (cf. Ez. 44:1). Finally, the Lord placed on the cross looked toward the west, and so we prostrate ourselves in his direction, facing him. When he ascended to heaven, he was raised toward the east, and thus his disciples adored him, and thus he will return, in the same way as they saw him go to heaven (cf. Acts 1:11), as the Lord himself said: 'For just as lightning comes from the east and is seen as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be' (Mt. 24:27). Waiting for him, we prostrate ourselves toward the east. It is an unwritten tradition, deriving from the Apostles." (John of Damascus, Expositio accurata fidei orthodoxae IV, 12: PG 94, 1133-1136)
This rich and fascinating interpretation also explains the reason for which the celebrant who presides in the liturgical celebration prays facing the east, just as the people who participate. It is not a question, as is often claimed, of presiding the celebration with the back turned to the people, but rather of guiding the people in pilgrimage toward the Kingdom, invoked in prayer until the return of the Lord.
Such practice, threatened in numerous Eastern Catholic Churches by a new and recent Latin influence, is thus of profound value and should be safeguarded as truly coherent with the Eastern liturgical spirituality.
Read what archbishop Quinn
Read what archbishop Quinn said about it. I recognize your name from Fr. "Z"'s website so I knew I would have to shovel through a lot of his bull. You've stated a lot of separate facts but they are not related or connected to each other. Your explanation is as tortuous and full of hyperbole as the protestants who try to explain away the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, lots of quotes unrelated to each other.
Sadly, Archbishop Quinn is an
Sadly, Archbishop Quinn is an example of the very bishop that has caused so much of the trouble over the last forty years. Archbishops Quinn, Roach, Hunthausen, Weakland; Cardinals Bernardin and Dearden (and Mahoney, at least in his mind) and others represent a generation of ecclesiastical leaders whose minds were not with the Church on many things (not all, I grant you). These and others like them were inclined to move the Church in a direction that the Council never authorized...they were the bishops pushing for innovations like general absolution (repeatedly and consistently condemned by the Church). These were the bishops pushing for liturgical and theological innovations and their last remaining hold-overs, such as Bishop Trautman, are the ones even today trying to block the reform of the "reform".
The Church has survived such before and will survive it again. She goes through her dark times, just as everyone does: the early Christological Heresies, the Great Schism, the Babylonian Captivity (Avignon Papacy), the Western Schism, the so-called Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the French Revolution, the Era of the "Spirit of Vatican II". All these dark times faded and the light of the True Faith shone through. It is doing so again, despite the darkness of the "Spirit of Vatican II". There is every reason to believe that the authentic teaching of the Council will be victorious over this Spirit of the Age.
Mr. Green is entitled to his
Mr. Green is entitled to his opinion but when he agrees with a bishop they are good bishops, when they disagree they are trouble makers. My such hrubis. I'm glad you know more than they do and I'm sure they will have a good chuckle over it.
I guess the megalomaniac bishop or should I say ex bishop Martino was a good bishop and it was those bad bishops possessed by the "darkness of the Spirit of Vatican II" that got rid of him, including the bishop of Rome himself. Sorry, the tide is turning but not in your direction as you had hoped. I sense deep anxiety among conservative catholics. First the conservatives said it was imminent that B16 was going to move the Rite of Peace, then require the consecration be said in latin, then require latin for the baptism formula, then require ad orientem, then eliminate communion in the hand, that bishop Martino was the reform of the reform type of bishop, then on and on and on. NONE of it has happened, fizzled, just rumor and tongue wagging(epistle of James has plenty to say about tongue wagging and rumor). Just like a bunch of cackling hens these conservative Catholics. All of it much ado about nothing! B16 hasn't even said Mass once in the extraordinary form in public. Hmmm, not once, B16 the architect of the reform of the reform. Yes, conservatives should be very worried. B16 was their last hope and he isn't moving very fast.
"This is Jesus, the Lamb of
"This is Jesus, the Lamb of God, who comes to take away the sins of the World. Happy are we who are called to this joyous and sacred meal."
Actually the words should (and will) be:
Behold the Lamb of God,behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.
And the only way to licitly share these words is through silent interior participation.
If my altarboy experience in
If my altarboy experience in the early 1960s is any indication, "silent interior participation" = "daydream."
In the adult training field from which I retired ten years ago, we distinguished between attendance/attendee, on the one hand, and participation/participant, on the other. Back in the day, so to speak, the Tridentine priest "said" the Mass; everyone else "attended" Mass.
Even if Vatican II's document on the sacred liturgy used the Latin "participatio actuosa" (translated by reactionaries as "actual participation" and progressives as "active participation"), the phrase itself is, in point of fact, redundant. Participation is not attendance. Participation is not praying the rosary while the priest is presiding at Mass. Participation is not private devotion within the assembly. Participation means getting involved in the liturgy: yes, standing, singing, praying vocally, turning to greet your neighbor. Participation means --- in the truest and finest sense of the word --- "attending to" what is taking place on the altar. There is no way a priest praying sotto voce in a (dead) foreign language can enable his congregation to "participate" in the liturgy.
Liturgy is "work/duty/service of the people." Eucharist is "act of communal thanksgiving." The Novus Ordo, as a liturgy of all present, serves these purposes. The Tridentine, as the work of the priest, did not, cannot, and never will serve communal worship.
Those who don't learn (or don't want to learn) the lessons of history.....
What does the priest facing
What does the priest facing the altar have to do with Latin?
Concerning WHAT participation
Concerning WHAT participation is, you said:
Participation is not attendance [nor] private devotion within the assembly. Participation means getting involved in the liturgy: yes, standing, singing, praying vocally, turning to greet your neighbor. Participation means ... "attending to" what is taking place on the altar. There is no way a priest praying sotto voce in a (dead) foreign language can enable his congregation to "participate" in the liturgy.
That conflicts with the 1958 Instruction De Musica Sacra which spoke of participation by the congregation in the liturgy, especially in terms of the responses and chants. See n. 22 for details. This instruction was contemporary to the "Tridentine" Mass, where the priest prayed some parts sotto voce "in a (dead) foreign language". So that Church clearly believed participation in the "Tridentine" Mass was possible. That's the same context in which Vatican II's documents were written: participation in the liturgy was already happening.
Participation must be interior if its exterior manifestation is to be genuine, and participation in truly dependent upon baptism. It's better if you KNOW what the Creed means when you pray it, rather than just rattle it off. It's better if you KNOW where the Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus comes from rather than just drone it.
You also said: The Tridentine, as the work of the priest, did not, cannot, and never will serve communal worship.
The Church clearly disagrees. Pope Pius XII did not think so, and detailed very beautifully how the faithful are called to participate in the Mass in his encyclical Mediator Dei, even to the point of participating in the offering of the Eucharist, believe it or not.
Mr. Pinyan, I don't know your
Mr. Pinyan, I don't know your age or background, but I am 61 and served the Tridentine masses - low, high, solemn high --- "back in the day" before Vatican II. The council began shortly after I entered the 9th grade and concluded shortly before I finished the 12th grade.
If 1958's "De Musica Sacra" was intended by the Vatican to govern conduct of the Tridentine mass as you've indicated, that's news to me. Quite simply, there was no lay participation (actual or active --- both words are redundant, really, when we discuss the meaning of participation). There was no singing, as I recall, at low masses. On Sundays and special obligatory feast days, it was the 7th and 8th grade girls choir that did the singing; the rest of us --- altarboys and folks in the pews --- listened. Solemn high masses, ditto. So I presume our pastor, assistant pastors, and archbishop were in violation of your 1958 reference? Perhaps, as you've stated, the "Church clearly believed participation in the 'Tridentine' Mass was possible." Mr. Pinyan, belief is one thing; actual practice is (and was, I assure you) another thing altogether. By the way, no need to put Tridentine in quotation/special marks: It has always been the Tridentine liturgy (named after the Council of Trent, which authorized its subsequent development), the current pope's attempts to sugarcoat its continued use notwithstanding. There is nothing extraordinary about it.
Your comments about interior/exterior participation are, I'm sorry to say, strawmen arguments: easy to put up, easy to knock down. Same with your comments about the Creed.
As for Pius XII, he --- like all of us --- was a product of his time. He did, however, contribute in his own way to the greater liturgical renewal that would follow his death just a few years later. Fact is that the world's bishops overwhelmingly approved Vatican II's "Sacrosanctum Concilium."
I will, however, direct you to an essay written by a Catholic who believes conservative Catholics are deluding themselves by asserting that SC does not mandate/encourage all the liturgical development that followed Vatican II. To read "Sacrosanctum Concilium: A Lawyer Examines the Loopholes," go to http://www.salbert.tripod.com/SClel.htm . Worth reading!
The url worked when I posted
The url worked when I posted its link. Google. Well worth it!
Here's what I said about
Here's what I said about participation and the Creed:
"Participation must be interior if its exterior manifestation is to be genuine, and participation in truly dependent upon baptism. It's better if you KNOW what the Creed means when you pray it, rather than just rattle it off."
What I said about participation is a one-sentence summary of the Church's teaching on participation, distilled from Tra la Sollecitudini, Divini Cultus, Mediator Dei, De Musica Sacra, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Musicam Sacram (in chronological order). What I said about the Creed is simply my own statement, but I would expect it's something a reasonable Christian could agree with.
These you called "strawmen arguments: easy to put up, easy to knock down." Would you please do me the kindness of knocking them down, rather than simply dismissing them?
So progressive Catholics
So progressive Catholics participating in Novus Ordo liturgies are not interiorly disposed to recite the Creed?
I apologize for not
I apologize for not responding sooner.
"So progressive Catholics participating in Novus Ordo liturgies are not interiorly disposed to recite the Creed?"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Do "progressive Catholics participating in Novus Ordo liturgies" not know what the words of the Creed mean? If so, they are missing out on something, yes. Liturgical catechesis should be offered to people of all ages, from young child to old adult. If a Catholic is saying the Creed out of "habit" and doesn't know what he's saying, he's basically just "going through the motions".
Do "progressive Catholics participating in Novus Ordo liturgies" regularly not recite the Creed in the words the Church has approved for us to use? If so, they are missing out on something. I would even go so far as to say that if a progressive Catholic doesn't know to bow during the "by the power of the Holy Spirit..." in the Creed, they're missing out on something too. It might be through no fault of their own, but there's something more for them.
Participation in the Church's liturgy is made possible first of all through baptism. To have the right interior disposition, I would say it helps to be in a state of grace, to know what's going on and what you're saying, and to be at Mass for the four reasons it's offered: adoration, thanksgiving, contrition, and supplication.
(For what it's worth, I attend almost exclusively "Novus Ordo liturgies"... I've been to maybe a half-dozen Masses in the Extraordinary Form in my life, and those were only in the past two years.)
Post new comment