Mass Facing The People

[CatholicCrusader]

I would love for someone to explain any kind of valid theolgical reason to say Mass facing the people, back to God (in the tabernacle) as well as to say Mass in an indiscrimant direction rather than facing East. It would not take much to have all churches facing the correct direction while erecting them. In any event, is there even one reason to face the people for Mass? "To get them involved" is not a valid reason, for the Mass is a Sacrifice to God, not a "talk" for the people. Therefore, I would venture to say there is not even one semi-decent reason to face the people. I will, of course, include good reasons not only to face the Tabernacle and the East but also reasons NOT to face the people regardless as to whether or not the former two are fulfilled. God bless.

[popestpiusx]

This is a fun topic!!!

[Iacobus]

That is a really good question and after reading it the only answer I cant think of it to make the people more involed in the Church. Not to talk to them so much as to encourge them to love and seek God. The idea of the Mass being to praise God but the Church is in the people and without members there is no Church and without the Church there is no Mass. I am not sure that is a decent answer, it find of falls under the "to get them more involed" so I don't know but I am intrested in seeing a "real" answer.

[Livin_the_MASS]

Me too! Because I think it would bring devotion back to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well. It puts the focus 100% on God!

God Bless
Jason

Edited March 30, 2004 by Jason

[CatholicCrusader]

I don't see the connection between facing the people and encouraging them. Is it beyond the power of the Mass, its perfect sanctity, not only in its prayers but also in its ceremonies (in the Traditional Mass, that is) to be able to encourage the Faithful? The Solemn Traditional Mass inspired awe even in the most atheistic persons and moved the most hardened of heart to seek Our Lord. I would certainly consider Gregorian Chant much more fulfilling than some poorly sang "hymn" during the so-called "presentation of the gifts" or, even worse, drums and guitars galore at a "teen" or "charismatic" "mass" (whether it's valid or not is questionable based upon the intention of the Priest). These are not so much the REASONS for saying the Mass ad orientem (to the East), but these serve, I think, to answer the "encouragement"/"involvement" idea of most Novus Ordo Catholics. And, yes, your reasoning does fall into that category; however, these aforementioned reasons should suffice to answer those objections. I am sure there would be others who constested this same reasoning (and maybe still will), so I would have to bring these reasons to the debate in any event, anyway. God bless you, and thank you for commenting.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/29 - Fifth Monday of Lent

I'm pretty sure that the practice of actually building the church facing east is more of a custom than a hard and fast rule. At the seminary, the priest says Mass facing south (for instance). Whatever direction the priest faces has always been understood as "liturgical East", if you will; for instance, there are so many altars inside St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and only one faces East - the Papal Altar.

Interesting sidenote - the direction the Pope stands while saying Mass didn't change with Vatican II. He always said Mass facing the people. However, the people only started facing him within the past 100 years or so. There is a hill behind St. Peter's that prevented architects from building an east-facing altar where the basilica would be behind the Holy Father. So it used to be that, while the Pope said Mass facing the people, the people faced the back of the church!

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/29 - Fifth Monday of Lent

By the way, as much as I hate guitars and drums at Mass, they are allowed (as far as I know). I have a Ruthenian priest friend who won't even allow an organ inside his church, since organs weren't allowed in churches until the mid-19th century.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]I'm pretty sure that the practice of actually building the church facing east is more of a custom than a hard and fast rule. [/quote]

Actually, I think it was the Council of Trent that said you must say Mass facing East, and, as far as I know, that has not been changed.

[quote]At the seminary, the priest says Mass facing south (for instance). [/quote]

[color=red]As a seminarian i am outraged this was an untrue statement and not called for.[/color]
[quote] there are so many altars inside St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and only one faces East - the Papal Altar.[/quote]

Of course you can't have all the altars in a large Cathedral (or Basilica, like St. Peter's) facing East; however side altars were done away with in the New Mass because (according to the new Canon Law) there should be a congregation at Mass (which is absurd...however, fortunately, it does not prohibit a Priest from saying Mass privately). Therefore, side altars have no bearing on the New Mass facing the people/a non-East direction. Also, side altars were not just used indiscriminantly. They were only used when the main altar was in use (and never during a public Sung or Solemn Mass).

[quote]the direction the Pope stands while saying Mass didn't change with Vatican II. He always said Mass facing the people. However, the people only started facing him within the past 100 years or so. There is a hill behind St. Peter's that prevented architects from building an east-facing altar where the basilica would be behind the Holy Father. So it used to be that, while the Pope said Mass facing the people, the people faced the back of the church[/quote]

That is true. However, you can see how the pre-concilliar Faithful realized the error in facing the Priest as he said Mass. Further, I believe he turned around and said the second part of Mass (after the Gospel) the other direction, and there was a signal for the people to turn (I don't remember exactly what he said, but he said something so they would know to turn). I read that in "A Brief History of the Roman Missal" by Michael Davies (or a similar title), but I think he said that this was only done until about 800...

[quote]By the way, as much as I hate guitars and drums at Mass, they are allowed (as far as I know). [/quote]

Actually they aren't. If you consider the encyclicals of many Popes on Sacred Music before Vatican II, this is clear. AND, in the Council it states that instruments that are used purely for secular music should not be used in Mass or popular devotions (Adoration, ect.). Of course, at that time drums and guitars were considered purely secular (and we must see the Council as they wrote it, not as it supposidly applies today). Further, still today I would not consider any of those so-called Catholic charismatic "worship" songs Catholic at all, for they are merely secular, feel-good garbage. According to the Roman Catechism, only worship that is Catholic is pleasing to God. Therefore, that is not pleasing to God (now...off my tangent..)

[quote]I have a Ruthenian priest friend who won't even allow an organ inside his church, since organs weren't allowed in churches until the mid-19th century.  [/quote]

That is absurd, of course they were allowed in churches before the nineteenth century. The organ was the ONLY instrument allowed for Mass until post-Vatican II. I think there were actually Popes before the 1850s who wrote that only the organ was allowed (because people were trying to bring things such as the piano into the Sanctuary).

God bless.

[CatholicCrusader]

By the way, yesterday was Passion Sunday, making today a Feria of Passiontide (Monday in Passion Week).

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/29 - Fifth Monday of Lent

CatholicCrusader,

All good points. However, you seem to have unfairly restricted me to solely pre-conciliar documents and statements of the Popes. I'm just wondering the grounds for this (seemingly) arbitrary cutoff. I'm sure it's not just arbitrary, so I would like to know your reasoning.

The reason I ask is because numerous peoples have had their own cutoffs in the past. The Sadducees only used the Pentateuch, the Greek Orthodox only use the first seven Councils of the Church, etc. They had (and have) valid arguments for their positions, but it seems restrictive - they have taken a date in history and said that no further legitimate development can or has occurred. I personally find this disturbing only because it's like keeping a puppy from becoming a dog.

And, by the way, organs were not allowed in churches because they always carried bad connotations with them - they were commonly used in brothels, theatres, and the like. The Church hesitatingly approved their use in the 19th century - though that doesn't mean they weren't used before.

We should always remember that no instrument, though, should ever seek to replace the tradition we have in Gregorian chant, which is to be afforded "pride of place" in the Liturgy, according to [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i].

Also...

[quote]That may be the case at SOME seminaries, but that certainly doesn't make it the rule (hardly any seminaries do anything correctly anymore). [/quote]

Though I'm not a moderator, this is uncalled for. Please do not further insult the houses where our priests are trained. I used the seminary as only one example. I can give you plenty of cases of individual church buildings built before the Council that embrace the "liturgical East" concept.

Peace.

[aByzantineCatholic]

Maybe someone could explain to me how the Ancient Priest faced the people when they had churches like this:

[img]http://perso.club-internet.fr/prilep/galerie2/cata/catacombes703.jpg[/img]

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]All good points. However, you seem to have unfairly restricted me to solely pre-conciliar documents and statements of the Popes. I'm just wondering the grounds for this (seemingly) arbitrary cutoff. I'm sure it's not just arbitrary, so I would like to know your reasoning.
[/quote]

The reason I make no mention of post-concilliar documents is that there is no mention or change of this practice in the documents (at least in a Dogmatic or even an authoritative way). I just read a short book by Michael Davies about that, actually called "The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council".

[quote]And, by the way, organs were not allowed in churches because they always carried bad connotations with them - they were commonly used in brothels, theatres, and the like. The Church hesitatingly approved their use in the 19th century - though that doesn't mean they weren't used before.
[/quote]

Can you show me the documentation on that because I was never aware of this.

[quote]We should always remember that no instrument, though, should ever seek to replace the tradition we have in Gregorian chant, which is to be afforded "pride of place" in the Liturgy, according to Sacrosanctum Concilium.
[/quote]

I couldn't agree more; however the organ is used very well with Gregorian Chant (e.g. Asperges).

[quote]Though I'm not a moderator, this is uncalled for. Please do not further insult the houses where our priests are trained. I used the seminary as only one example. I can give you plenty of cases of individual church buildings built before the Council that embrace the "liturgical East" concept.[/quote]

I don't see anything wrong with stating a fact. Most seminaries don't teach what the Church teaches. I myself will be going to seminary in about 2 years, so it's not as though I have something against seminary or whatever idea that may have given you. I just realize that just as many Priests abuse the Mass, so also many seminarians are not taught sound doctrine, or even completely incorrect doctrine, especially during Vatican II (as I was informed by an older friend who was in seminary during the council, but left and did not become a Priest. The abuse of the Mass then was, if you can believe it, worse than it is now.) I don't see anything wrong with, as I have said before, calling a spade a spade.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Mar 29 2004, 05:42 PM'] I would love for someone to explain any kind of valid theolgical reason to say Mass facing the people, back to God (in the tabernacle) as well as to say Mass in an indiscrimant direction rather than facing East. It would not take much to have all churches facing the correct direction while erecting them. In any event, is there even one reason to face the people for Mass? "To get them involved" is not a valid reason, for the Mass is a Sacrifice to God, not a "talk" for the people. Therefore, I would venture to say there is not even one semi-decent reason to face the people. I will, of course, include good reasons not only to face the Tabernacle and the East but also reasons NOT to face the people regardless as to whether or not the former two are fulfilled. God bless. [/quote]
I wish the priests did not face the people, I wish all Churches were built so that the priest would be facing East (and presumably the high altar). That said, I will play devil's advocate for a moment.

While its a good thing to face East while saying the Mass, and it has a kind of Theological symbolism, this does not mean that there is something wrong with facing an indiscriminant direction. There are many possible symbolic aspects that have come on gone in the various liturgical developments of the Church. And there does not have to be a Theological basis for not facing East. I personally wish the more attention was paid to things like this, but I don't think its worth getting your shorts in a bundle over.

I am not sure what people who promote the priest facing the people would say, but I'm sure they have arguments. Maybe because Christ didn't have His back to the Apostles at the last supper and the priest stands in persona Christi. Also Christ did not have His back to the people on Calvary. And maybe because they think it will make people pay more attention and be more involved in the Mass, especially since the Novus Ordo is more of a "dialogue Mass". The priest would be talking to the people with his back to them, or turning around at akward times? Just a guess. Maybe also it symbolizes the community aspect better (according to those who support this move) and makes the Eucharist more like a communal meal, we are all gathered around the table of the Lord with the priest at the head of the table in a way, instead of at the altar with his back to the people as a kind of distant and remote figure doing something that does not involve the people per se. The people can feel like they are more involved and they can "know whats going on". These are some of the things I've heard from people, mostly just lay people, I'd be interested to read the liturgical theology that was popular when that practice started to appear. Aidan Nichols has a good book, The Recovery of the Sacred (I think that's the title), he documents the liturgical movements in the late sixties and early seventies. It was an eye opener for me.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

aByzantineCatholic,

That church makes me want to cry...

[Jesus' Little Bride]

I read Sacrosanctum Concilium a couple of years back and distinctly remember missing the part where the direction of offering Mass was changed. It is my view (literally my view when standing behind the priest at a Traditional Mass) that facing ad orientem (and WITH the people) actually is an incredible sign of the priesthood of the faithful (as opposed to Novus Ordo Masses where the action at the altar [/I]can[I] have the flavor of a show on stage.)
However. There does exist at least one pretty thoughtful explanation for why priests ordinarily offer Mass ad populum (toward the people) today: namely that the Mass is a sacrifical banquet. It is the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, first offered as the Passover Meal on the night BEFORE Calvary. It is reasonable to believe that that Meal was offered around a table, people facing one another. Of course I've heard Jewish History scholars propose that the Jews ate passover on one side of a U-shaped table, and of course all those present at the Last Supper were newly ordained priests (the 12.) We don't know absolutely for certain how the early Christians offered Mass; we know how they did it 500 years ago and 40 years ago; they might do it a little different in another 40 or 500 years, for sound or for silly ideological reasons. It is still the Mass.
I love the Tridentine Liturgy, I love Latin, I love to spill sensory splendor wherever we can afford it. Also, I love Vatican II! And it gets worse: I love the bare bones daily Novus Ordo Mass offered by a priest who didn't get enough sleep the night before. Yes, I know, lex orandi, lex credendi, I quote it left and right. But at the end of the day I also like to keep in mind a fresh perspective from the Little Poverello, St. Francis: "Shall I, the gnat that dances in thy ray, dare to be reverent?"