A Few Of The Many Things That I Wish Would Be Restored

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1233565' date='Apr 7 2007, 01:19 PM']Why do the others want the priest to turn around again? I don't understand why that's such a huge deal.[/quote]
Simply, having the priest "turn around" would symbolically have the priest ad orientem-- to the East. It was an ancient gesture full of hope in the Second Coming of Christ. And as an added bonus it would be [i]more [/i]communal--the priest would be leading the worship of the people, with the entire Church celebrating the Eucharist while hopefully awaiting the triumphant return of Christ the King.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1235063' date='Apr 8 2007, 12:23 PM']And as an added bonus it would be [i]more [/i]communal--the priest would be leading the worship of the people, with the entire Church celebrating the Eucharist while hopefully awaiting the triumphant return of Christ the King.[/quote]
Because that's not already being done...


And is that really the only reason to have him turn around? Or the main reason, rather?


Our tabernacle (directly behind the altar) faces the north.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1235263' date='Apr 8 2007, 05:28 PM']Because that's not already being done...
And is that really the only reason to have him turn around? Or the main reason, rather?
Our tabernacle (directly behind the altar) faces the north. [/quote]
If you want a good introduction to that particular issue I would suggest this text: [url="http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=2270&AFID=12&"]Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer[/url]

The Pope himself recommends this book highly (he wrote the forward for crying out loud). I would also of course recommend B16's books on the Liturgy.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I found Ratzinger's forward to that book and figured I'd post it to give peeps a better idea of what the book is all about.

[quote]To the ordinary churchgoer, the two most obvious effects of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council seem to be the disappearance of Latin and the turning of the altars towards the people. Those who read the relevant texts will be astonished to learn that neither is in fact found in the decrees of the Council. The use of the vernacular is certainly permitted, especially for the Liturgy of the Word, but the preceding general rule of the Council text says, 'Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites' (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36.1).

There is nothing in the Council text about turning altars towards the people; that point is raised only in postconciliar instructions. The most important directive is found in paragraph 262 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, the General Instruction of the new Roman Missal, issued in 1969. That says, 'It is better for the main altar to be constructed away from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people (versus populum).' The General Instruction of the Missal issued in 2002 retained this text unaltered except for the addition of the subordinate clause, 'which is desirable wherever possible'. This was taken in many quarters as hardening the 1969 text to mean that there was now a general obligation to set up altars facing the people 'wherever possible'.

This interpretation, however, was rejected by the Congregation for Divine Worship on 25 September 2000, when it declared that the word 'expedit' ('is desirable') did not imply an obligation but only made a suggestion. The physical orientation, the Congregation says, must be distinguished from the spiritual. Even if a priest celebrates versus populum, he should always be oriented versus Deum per Iesum Christum (towards God through Jesus Christ). Rites, signs, symbols, and words can never exhaust the inner reality of the mystery of salvation. For this reason the Congregation warns against one-sided and rigid positions in this debate.

This is an important clarification. It sheds light on what is relative in the external symbolic forms of the liturgy and resists the fanaticisms that, unfortunately, have not been uncommon in the controversies of the last forty years. At the same time it highlights the internal direction of liturgical action, which can never be expressed in its totality by external forms. This internal direction is the same for priest and people, towards the Lord-towards the Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit. The Congregation's response should thus make for a new, more relaxed discussion, in which we can search for the best ways of putting into practice the mystery of salvation. The quest is to be achieved, not by condemning one another, but by carefully listening to each other and, even more importantly, listening to the internal guidance of the liturgy itself. The labelling of positions as 'preconciliar', 'reactionary', and 'conservative', or as 'progressive' and 'alien to the faith' achieves nothing; what is needed is a new mutual openness in the search for the best realisation of the memorial of Christ.

This small book by Uwe Michael Lang, a member of the London Oratory, studies the direction of liturgical prayer from a historical, theological, and pastoral point of view. At a propitious moment, as it seems to me, this book resumes a debate that, despite appearances to the contrary, has never really gone away, not even after the Second Vatican Council.

The Innsbruck liturgist Josef Andreas Jungmann, one of the architects of the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, was from the, very beginning resolutely opposed to the polemical catchphrase that previously the priest celebrated 'with his back to the people'; he emphasised that what was at issue was not the priest turning away from the people, but, on the contrary, his facing the same direction as the people. The Liturgy of the Word has the character of proclamation and dialogue, to which address and response can rightly belong. But in the Liturgy of the Eucharist the priest leads the people in prayer and is turned, together with the people, towards the Lord. For this reason, Jungmann argued, the common direction of priest and people is intrinsically fitting and proper to the liturgical action. Louis Bouyer (like Jungmann, one of the Council's leading liturgists) and Klaus Gainber have each in his own way taken up the same question. Despite their great reputations, they were unable to make their voices heard at first, so strong was the tendency to stress the communality of the liturgical celebration and to regard therefore the face-to-face position of priest and people as absolutely necessary.

More recently the atmosphere has become more relaxed so that it is possible to raise the kind of questions asked by Jungmann, Bouyer, and Gamber without at once being suspected of anti-conciliar sentiments. Historical research has made the controversy less partisan, and among the faithful there is an increasing sense of the problems inherent in an arrangement that hardly shows the liturgy to be open to the things that are above and to the world to come.

In this situation, Lang's delightfully objective and wholly unpolemical book is a valuable guide. Without claiming to offer major new insights, he carefully presents the results of recent research and provides the material necessary for making an informed judgment. The book is especially valuable in showing the contribution made by the Church of England to this question and in giving, also, due consideration to the part played by the Oxford Movement in the nineteenth century (in which the conversion of John Henry Newman matured). It is from such historical evidence that the author elicits the theological answers that he proposes, and I hope that the book, the work of a young scholar, will help the struggle-necessary in every generation–for the right understanding and worthy celebration of the sacred liturgy.

I wish the book a wide and attentive readership.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Rome, Laetare Sunday 2003[/quote]

[franciscanheart]

Thanks L_D I'll have to pick that up.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1235263' date='Apr 8 2007, 06:28 PM']Because that's not already being done...
And is that really the only reason to have him turn around? Or the main reason, rather?
Our tabernacle (directly behind the altar) faces the north. [/quote]
It's not (always) a literal facing east, but a rich symbolic gesture. Pope Benedict and Bro. Lang explain it much more effectively than I do. L_D's excerpt and link would be my recommendations as well.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1233783' date='Apr 7 2007, 04:11 PM']I was told the Confiteor was optional..so we don't do it...wish we did...i'd like to have that restored (to my parish, at least)[/quote]

FYI, the Confietor is one option for the penitential rite (which is not optional). It is perfectly permissible to pray the Confiteor, since at almost every mass, there is a penetiential rite at the beginning of Mass (Ash Wednesday is a notable excpetion). Talk to your priest/liturgist about using it in lieu of the common penetiential litany (Lord, you were sent to heal the contrite...) during Advent or Lent, for starters. Just don't learn it too well - the English translation will be changing in the next 5 years.

[bonoducchi]

My thoughts on liturgical posture and orientation....

As in many things liturgucal, it seems to be a "both/and" situation. The idea of versum populo is to focus on the precense of Christ in the assembly (the people, who are also being offered in the Eucharistic Prayer, are incensed by the deacon...a beautiful ritual action that really struck me this past Thursday). Ad orientem emphasizes the eschatological dimension of liturgy.

Some days, the readings seem to focus more on seeing Christ in each other, so it would make sense to celebrate the Eucharist in a more "people-of-God oriented" orientation.

Other days, when the litrugy seems to emphasize God transcendent, ad orientem could be used to emphasize the transecndence of God and the way in which we await his return. Advent seems like a good time to try ad orientem in parishes, since it is a season closely ordered to eschatology.

By using both orientations, I think we emphasize the multiplicty of ways God is present to us. He is present immeadiately to us in our fellow creatures. He is also present in a more transcendent and cosmic way as we await the coming of our Savior. If we are able to bring people to a fuller awareness of God's presence, both immeadiate and transcendant, then I think we form Christians of deeper and more profound faith.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1236248' date='Apr 9 2007, 07:38 PM']By using both orientations, I think we emphasize the multiplicty of ways God is present to us. He is present immeadiately to us in our fellow creatures. He is also present in a more transcendent and cosmic way as we await the coming of our Savior. If we are able to bring people to a fuller awareness of God's presence, both immeadiate and transcendant, then I think we form Christians of deeper and more profound faith.[/quote]

I think that might be something I'd like.

[Aloysius]

the versus populum position maintains the symbolism by placing the liturgical east between the priest and the people. it has often been suggested that a crucifix be placed at this spot on the altar to make this clear, but even without it that is what it is. The priest is not facing Christ's presence in the assembly; the priest is facing the Eucharist and the people are facing the Eucharist... that point is the liturgical east where both priest and people are supposed to be looking. the community is supposed to be united looking towards a point where Christ symbolically comes from (the place in between the priest and the people) and then looking at the point where Christ substantially becomes present.

I think this is something that should have a type of consistency; it would confuse everything even more if priests were facing one way based on what the readings were that day and facing another based on what the readings were that day. I don't agree with VIILiturgist's interpretation of the Versus Populum position; I would challenge him to prove that that is the reasoning behind the orientation. It is not, I do not believe. The reasoning is so that the people can see what the priest is doing and hear what he is saying, but the people do not take the place of the liturgical east as the location from which Christ is symbolically coming. The Altar itself takes the place of the liturgical east... which, of course, it always was in the place of the liturgical east (it was just more clear when the altar was not turned around). the symbolic place to which all are looking is the altar, is the Eucharist.

now, other than that, the emphasis of the Versus Populum stance is to direct the words at the people in a certain sense. Not in the sense that the priest is looking at the people for where Christ's presence is coming from for the Eucharist, but for when the priest says "take and eat".

but having the priest face different ways for different liturgical seasons? I don't think I could see that happening; and I don't know that I'd want to see that happening. If there is going to be Versus Populum, there should be symbols added to make clear where the liturgical east is (a crucifix in place on the altar between the priest and the people). but I think the best thing to do would be to have the priest face ad orientum again, for in every season with every set of readings the symbolism fits best that shows the priest as just the head representative of us (not the one ruling over us and directing us) facing the same way as we are with the same anticipation of Christ as the center.

and for goodness sakes: get all the priests chairs out of the center of the altar. it makes it look like he is ruling over us like a king! in the highest center-most spot, it's horrid. even if you have a versus populum missae, for goodness sake put the priest's chair over to the side and have him approach the altar.

it very much perplexes me how all the same people who want to get rid of all distinctions between the clergy and the people have actually put the priest up in a throne over the people in this way, ruling over us. I tell you, when the priest comes from a chair off to the side, approaches the altar in reverence, and says a mass facing the same way as we are, it is much more clear that he is serving us as the head representative, acting right up there in our place, and not presiding over us as the Master of Ceremonies.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1236356' date='Apr 9 2007, 08:46 PM']and for goodness sakes: get all the priests chairs out of the center of the altar. it makes it look like he is ruling over us like a king! in the highest center-most spot, it's horrid. even if you have a versus populum missae, for goodness sake put the priest's chair over to the side and have him approach the altar.[/quote]

Amen to that! My old parish had them to the side, but my current one has the chair in the middle of the altar (the cathedral here is like that, too). I didn't realize how much it meant to see the priest approach the altar until I had to do without it.

Edited April 9, 2007 by Archaeology cat

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1236356' date='Apr 9 2007, 01:46 PM']and for goodness sakes: get all the priests chairs out of the center of the altar. it makes it look like he is ruling over us like a king! in the highest center-most spot, it's horrid. even if you have a versus populum missae, for goodness sake put the priest's chair over to the side and have him approach the altar.[/quote]
this part feels like the arguments against all-male altar servers. it seems a bit ridiculous to me. it seems a bit jealous or prideful or... do you get what i'm trying to say? it just has that feeling.


our priests had their chairs moved off to the side a few years ago after the letter came out asking all parishes to do so. it looks odd (not so much anymore since it's been that way for a while) because the church was constructed so that the chair have their own space between the altar and tabernacle. but anyway...

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I think part of the reasonings against female altar servers, the location of the priest's chair, etc..--in general, all the "picky-ness" about the Liturgy is because Catholic liturgy says something by its gestures and objects, not merely by words. It's beautiful imagery to those who see it there, and in an ideal world (i.e., when we get to Heaven) everyone would see this.

..seeing altar-serving as a preparation for discerning the priesthood... having the priest approach the altar because he is submitting himself to the person of Christ in offering the Mass... having the priest celebrate ad orietem because he's leading the congregation/reminding them to look towards the triumphant return of Christ our King... using Latin to remind the faithful that the liturgy is sacred, universal, and ancient...etc. etc.

[Aloysius]

it's not jealousy to think priests should not be put in a place where they do not properly belong. these priests are being made into MCs... instead of being the head of the body of the congregation, they are basically sitting over us.

so when I give over to the symbolism in an absolute way, I'm doing it to prove a point. no, of course the priest isn't being a king... but he's no longer acting like the servant-head approaching the altar to represent the people. he's the guy in charge of everything, because he's sitting front-and-center. the position teaches something, and it completely disrupts the flow of the liturgy.

I'm not just being anal about what is required and what is not. I'm approaching this from the organic perspective of how the liturgy flows in a way which is most edifying of Christian truths. and that position (front and center, facing the people) is clearly a place of pride and respect. that's why they used to put the Tabernacle of the King of Kings there. everyone knows that whoever is sitting front and center above anyone else facing them is putting themself in a place of power over them. that's intuitive in our culture (and I'd bet in most cultures; put someone on a higher level in a chair facing a big crowd of people, that person's gonna be seen as the person in charge, the person with power, the center-of-attention).

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1236793' date='Apr 9 2007, 07:32 PM']it's not jealousy to think priests should not be put in a place where they do not properly belong. these priests are being made into MCs... instead of being the head of the body of the congregation, they are basically sitting over us.

so when I give over to the symbolism in an absolute way, I'm doing it to prove a point. no, of course the priest isn't being a king... but he's no longer acting like the servant-head approaching the altar to represent the people. he's the guy in charge of everything, because he's sitting front-and-center. the position teaches something, and it completely disrupts the flow of the liturgy.

I'm not just being anal about what is required and what is not. I'm approaching this from the organic perspective of how the liturgy flows in a way which is most edifying of Christian truths. and that position (front and center, facing the people) is clearly a place of pride and respect. that's why they used to put the Tabernacle of the King of Kings there. everyone knows that whoever is sitting front and center above anyone else facing them is putting themself in a place of power over them. that's intuitive in our culture (and I'd bet in most cultures; put someone on a higher level in a chair facing a big crowd of people, that person's gonna be seen as the person in charge, the person with power, the center-of-attention).[/quote]
funny. that thought NEVER entered my mind. and i never got that feeling. and i think it's a bit presumptuous of you to say that priests are purposely situating themselves in a place of pride.