Mass Facing The People

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jesus' Little Bride' date='Mar 29 2004, 09:22 PM'] 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?" [/quote]
Right on.

My post on the last page was devil's advocate stuff. I'm tempted to rip my own post to shreds..

God bless

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/29 - Fifth Monday of Lent

CatholicCrusader,

I've read the book you speak of, and there's no falsity in there that I'm aware of. I think his point is that nothing in church architecture [i]had[/i] to change. People think that certain things [i]had[/i] to change, and his point is that, though certain things are allowed, nothing was mandated. I don't personally see a problem with this.

I think it's important to remember this (I'm not trying to stop debate, just reminding) - when a priest says Mass, whether he is [i]ad orientem[/i] (to the East) or [i]ad populum[/i] (to the people), he always primarily and most importantly says Mass [i]ad Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum[/i].

I'll find the documentation for you on the organ thing, though it may take a bit.

Finally, you're right - there is nothing wrong with [i]prudently[/i] calling a spade a spade. What I may speak is truth, but I must speak truth with prudence, otherwise it is not good that it is being said. St. Thomas tells us that all virtue is necessarily prudent, which means that we must be prudent if we are to be virtuous. In times like these, it does not seem prudent to indiscriminately criticize our seminaries - instead, let's pray for them. As St. Josemaria Escriva said, "There is no such thing as a bad priest, only a priest for whom we do not pray enough." Peace.

[popestpiusx]

Pio, I don't think crusader intended to insult anyone. He was simply stating a fact. Fr. Hardon once said that the best way to save the Church in America would be to shut down all but four or five of the seminaries. The reason he gave is that they are producing thousands of bad priests who are in turn corrupting millions of people. Only four or five could even be considered Catholic.

LD, you are great fun! I wish I could play devils advocate, but unfortunately this is one thread that I could not stomach it. I can't defend the indefensible. Nice try though.

[phatcatholic]

wow, very interesting discussion here. i'll have to admit, rather ashamedly, that i have never really considered these matters before....

[popestpiusx]

There has been a huge debate raging in conservative circles over that last few years whether or not it is legitimate to say the Novus Ordo ad orientem. The answer is, of course, yes, absolutely. BUT, certain tyrannical bishops have attempted to forbid it. In fact, EWTN used to have their Masses said ad orientem, but the bishop down there (Lipscomb or Foley??) "forced" them to stop. Why? Who knows. But it has always been the practice of the Church, whether actual east or spiritual east. It is interesting to note that one of the first liturgical changes made by the prots during the prot. revolt was to get rid of the high altar and replace it with a table. Sound familiar?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm just throwing this out there. It's possible that the priest facing the people has happened naturally and that we might not understand the Theology behind it right now but later we will. A lot of developments happened like that. A person didn't say, this would be good because it will mean this, it just happened naturally and it naturally meant xyz. The language of the Liturgy is beyond words.
I'm saying this because I can remember very powerful moments with the priest facing the people so maybe I don't understand it, but there could be more to it than we realize.
For example during my conversion I saw the priest at Mass holding a host in his hands, and as he spoke the words of the consecration (audibly, in English) I knew it was literally true. Even though I was not catechised and knew next to nothing about Catholicism, I know that when the priest said "This is my Body...", that he was speaking in persona Christi and that the Eucharist was Christ! The only way I can describe this experience (since it was just a big Grace) is to say that I felt like Christ Himself was saying those words, in a sense personally to me, and that I was actually at the last supper and Calvary at the same time. I can never forget that moment. I know this happens at every Mass, but it was so powerful that first time, I was in love with the Mass and the Eucharist after that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 29 2004, 10:13 PM'] There has been a huge debate raging in conservative circles over that last few years whether or not it is legitimate to say the Novus Ordo ad orientem.  The answer is, of course, yes, absolutely.  BUT, certain tyrannical bishops have attempted to forbid it.  In fact, EWTN used to have their Masses said ad orientem, but the bishop down there (Lipscomb or Foley??) "forced" them to stop.  Why?  Who knows.  But it has always been the practice of the Church, whether actual east or spiritual east.  It is interesting to note that one of the first liturgical changes made by the prots during the prot. revolt was to get rid of the high altar and replace it with a table.  Sound familiar? [/quote]
Yeah, I heard about that! I heard that Bishops cannot forbid ad orientem. That makes sense since its awesome. And why would anyone want to forbid it? That is something that I would like to hear a defense of. Maybe they'd play the old "uniformity" card. Even though they don't give a carp about uniformity when it comes to ad libing the Mass and introducing all their innovations and junk.

Edited March 30, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]For example during my conversion I saw the priest at Mass holding a host in his hands, and as he spoke the words of the consecration (audibly, in English) I knew it was literally true. Even though I was not catechised and knew next to nothing about Catholicism, I know that when the priest said "This is my Body...", that he was speaking in persona Christi and that the Eucharist was Christ! The only way I can describe this experience (since it was just a big Grace) is to say that I felt like Christ Himself was saying those words, in a sense personally to me, and that I was actually at the last supper and Calvary at the same time. I can never forget that moment. I know this happens at every Mass, but it was so powerful that first time, I was in love with the Mass and the Eucharist after that[/quote]

That's awsome L_D! That was a precious gift! Thanks for sharing!

God Bless You Man.
Jason

[Donna]

Ah, well I fell in love w/ the Blessed Sacrament at a Latin Mass in which I didn't understand one word (w/ priest facing God).

Laudate (you devil), which is it?

a) that priest facing the people is a return to our roots

-or-

b) that it is a development of significant theology as of yet uncovered?


2. Yes, the faithful faced the Priest at Calvary. But that Priest is God. The priest [i]in persona Christi[/i] is not God.

3. The Blessed Sacrament is the Spouse of the priest, so to speak; It is his Beloved. Isn't it fitting he should face his Beloved in offering His Beloved to the First Person? What greater act of love than to offer the Holy Sacrifice, the True Victim and Summit of Love? Why would he face the people, and not his Love?

4. The priest leads a portion of Our Lord's flock, and so he is a shepherd of The One True Shepherd. Musn't we all turn toward God (in prayer, in belief, in hope, in good will, etc;), in order to be given grace? [i]In order to [/i]literally [i]be led[/i]? How much more so for the priest who is a mediator in a unique sense?

Isn't it fitting that both shepherd and faithful face Our Lord?

[DojoGrant]

In Church's were the Tabernacle is not behind the alter (like ours here in Starkville, MS), is this facing the other direction not irrelevant in this case?

[popestpiusx]

Dojo, that is another can of worms. It still matters because though becasue facing the tabrenacle is not the only reason for it. HE is facing (spiritual) east and is offering the Sacrifuce of Calvary to God the Father, while those behind him (the faithful) unite themselves to that offering. Have you ever been to the tridentine Mass?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 30 2004, 01:09 AM'] Laudate (you devil), which is it?

a) that priest facing the people is a return to our roots

-or-

b) that it is a development of significant theology as of yet uncovered?

[/quote]
I don't know actually. With what I know right now I think the priest should face ad orientem, but since the Church allows the priest to face the people I like to think there is something to it, that its not just some random liberal protestantization. I would rather propose and consider other possibilities before accepting such a conclusion.

God bless.

[Ellenita]

OK, could someone please explain the significance of facing east? (Treat me gently, remember I'm a recent convert from protestantism!! ) Also, how would this be addressed in the church where I go where the priest stands [i]behind [/i]the altar at Mass - he is facing both the Blessed Sacrament and the people! The church was built before Vatican II which is from where I presume all this debate originates!

[popestpiusx]

LD, read Bugnini's "Reform of the Liturgy" to see what influenced the decision.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]OK, could someone please explain the significance of facing east?[/quote]

Well, first and foremost, Our Lord told the Apostles to wait for His Second Coming (where He will come from the East).

Also, symbolically, facing East, where the Sun rises, which is symbolic of beginning. The Eucharist is a beginning and Our Lord Himself said to Our Lady on His walk to Calvary "I make all things new." Hence, His Sacrifice is a new beginning. Therefore, it has always been a holy and pious practice to face East saying Mass (which was codified, I believe, at the Council of Trent, a Council that delt much with the administration of Sacraments).

God bless.