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

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1236731' date='Apr 9 2007, 07:00 PM']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.[/quote]
The only thing I don't get is this... why is the action of approaching from the left or right more humble than approaching from in front or behind?


Thinking it all over in my head I can see the difference in watching our priest now walk all the way from where he sits and our old priest walking from behind, however, I'm not sure it's enough of a difference to make that much of an impact. Not to mention that the place he used to sit balanced the whole space more effectively.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1236963' date='Apr 9 2007, 09:42 PM']The only thing I don't get is this... why is the action of approaching from the left or right more humble than approaching from in front or behind?
Thinking it all over in my head I can see the difference in watching our priest now walk all the way from where he sits and our old priest walking from behind, however, I'm not sure it's enough of a difference to make that much of an impact. Not to mention that the place he used to sit balanced the whole space more effectively.[/quote]
Well.. (I was thinking of the Tridentine Mass in my post regarding the approach) because I was going to say that you don't normally approach a dignitary from behind or from the sides... you walk before him and make a gesture of humility before (in front) of him.

Usually the space is balanced if the ambo is opposite the priest's chair? I don't know if I've been a parish where the priest's chair offsets the balance...

[Maggyie]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1236963' date='Apr 9 2007, 10:42 PM']The only thing I don't get is this... why is the action of approaching from the left or right more humble than approaching from in front or behind?[/quote]

This is probably an overly simple answer... but I think it probably has to do with the idea that people/things that are "centered" tend to get more emphasis. I know in our parish where the priest is directly behind the altar, your eyes are basically drawn to [i]him [/i]throughout the Mass simply because he's right there in the middle. I am sure that most priests are not comfortable being the center of attention all through the liturgy, I don't think they're being proud or anything, it's probably just a set-up that unfortunately people have gotten used to.

[quote]Thinking it all over in my head I can see the difference in watching our priest now walk all the way from where he sits and our old priest walking from behind, however, I'm not sure it's enough of a difference to make that much of an impact. Not to mention that the place he used to sit balanced the whole space more effectively.[/quote]

It is absolutely correct that some spaces are constructed in such a way that the "celebrant to the side" set-up isn't half so aesthetically pleasing! When it doesn't work, oh, it doesn't work! Of course that could always be remedied through other methods by placing something on the other side of the sanctuary...

[Aloysius]

I never said the priests themselves are putting themselves in the center of attention. they're being put there by the prevailing liturgical opinions of the day.

have you ever attended a Traditional Latin Mass? it's a good thing to do to get perspective on some of the things the Missa Normativa should be doing. If you have the chance, really notice the difference between the role of the priest. it's not just that the chair is up in the front-center where the tabernacle used to be, it's the entire role he has in officiating the ceremony. he's made into the center of attention; and it is so clear that that spot (front and center, highest point, overlooking all the people) is the focus-point of the whole altar. that's why we always put the Tabernacle there, it's the center-focusing point.

it doesn't matter whether it seems like a big deal when you think about it; there is much more power to the way we act in the liturgy than any of us realize. that's why the Church insists on standardization so much, it's the little things which change the focus of the worship in ways that are hard to fully grasp. a well catechized orthodox Christian who studies religious matters knows to focus on the Eucharist as the center of the liturgy, to look at the Eucharist with the priest as the liturgical East. but the average pew-sitter comes to mass and begins to look at the priest the way protestant ministers are looked at: they're presiding over this little get-together, they're the center, what they do is how the liturgy will go. whereas the ad orientum position minimized the danger of personalization and took the priest out of the center (he clearly tends to pale in comparison to the high altar he approaches, and when he sits he sits off to the side down off of the risen portion of the altar at the same height as the people)

perhaps that is part of it... the priest being where he should be his chair is situated a step down from the altar. still within the sanctuary by being on the other side of the altar rail, but basically at the same level as everyone else. he comes up out of that level to approach the offering of the sacrifice on our behalf.

there are intricate symbolic acts at work that you don't necessarily think, you feel them. I wouldn't be so quick to discount things you don't think are big deals; everything we do in the Divine Worship on a weekly basis is a huge deal to the experience the common man has of his faith.

when I take people to the Latin Mass, I usually tell them to consider the act they are attending more important than the words that are being said. you know, try to follow along in the missals but don't try so hard that you miss what the priest and servers are actually doing. I think we lost a lot of that when all the words became so easy to understand in English; we stopped looking at all the deeply intricate actions as important and overemphasized the words that were being said. masses are actions of worship, not just statements of worship. protestant services are statements of worship without ritual action; and whoever is in charge of saying all the words is therefore front-and-center the focus of the whole event. but the Catholic Mass is first and foremost an ACTION of worship; a deaf Catholic could participate in it as actively as a Catholic of good hearing even if there was no sign language and they couldn't read lips... because the symbolic ritual acts themselves express what we intend to express in worship just as fully as the words we surround them with.

I wonder why "balance" is being considered important here... the priests chair should be off to the side as far to the peripheral of the image of worship as possible. if possible, down a step from the altar itself. if that is not possible, at least to the peripheral of the sanctuary; it makes perfect sense to me that there wouldn't be a symmetrical sanctuary in that way, the priest is supposed to be the foreign element to that sacred space, coming up from among men to ascend into the heavenly mysteries. he should be out of place and off-center.

[Moneybags]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1224335' date='Mar 31 2007, 05:30 PM']I think that the Pope should restore the old Roman liturgy, but allow it to be celebrated in either Latin or the vernacular languages. Then he should suppress the Pauline Missal.

[/quote]

Amen! Let's bring back Masses like this:

[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/241/453491401_07754e6cb4_o.jpg[/img]

[N/A Gone]

i wish...good luck with that.

We sound like old people whinning on the porch

[SJP]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1237577' date='Apr 10 2007, 10:55 AM']i wish...good luck with that.

We sound like old people whinning on the porch[/quote]

Unfortunately many people have good reason to "whine" because of the state of the liturgy in many Catholic Parishes.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1237577' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:55 AM']i wish...good luck with that.

We sound like old people whinning on the porch[/quote]
I don't think so... if you mean that "old people" who whine on porches whine about things they are powerless to change. The Church will prevail, and as she grows she will ensure the faith expressed in the liturgy is authentic and clear. We are still sorting through the turbulent waters that crashed over the Church after the misinterpretation of Vatican II.

[N/A Gone]

like I said..if it wasnt for sacraments I would not have converted

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1237946' date='Apr 10 2007, 02:39 PM']like I said..if it wasnt for sacraments I would not have converted[/quote]
Ok, perhaps you don't have the same appreciation for Liturgy that some here apparently have. But I'm sure even you would draw the line somewhere. I'm sure such extreme cases as the clown Mass, the "Barney" Mass, the Halloween Mass, the Talk Show Mass, etc. would be enough to prick your sense of the dignity and sanctity of the Mass.

That is one aspect of this kind of discussion as I see it; the inherent dignity of the Divine Liturgy, the embodiment of the sacred and transcendent as well as the literal participation in sacred Mysteries which unfolds in liturgical action and symbolism.
The other major aspect that has already been introduced is the enactment and embodiment of sacred truth, or doctrine in the liturgical form. The consequence of this second aspect is that liturgy can be evaluated in terms of its efficacy to express the theological contents of the events in a proper mode and in truth.
Bad liturgy not only obscures the meaning of what is taking place but can in effect tell a lie or express false doctrine in its form.

I brought up the extreme cases above as an attempt to establish some common ground. I'm sure we both agree that there is an inherent dignity to liturgical prayer and that there must be limits or a kind of structure which is proper to authentic liturgy.

Many popular liturgical trends of the last 40 years or so have been inspired by false or questionable doctrines and/or ideologies. This is a big part of the reason why many Catholics get upset about this subject. One big example would be the often ideological agenda to make the liturgy more "horizontal". The reasons for this usually sound good enough, but all too often it is pushed to an extreme that, in my opinion as well as that of many others, obscures the essential meaning of the Sacred Liturgy and thus does violence to the essential character and meaning of the Liturgy.

If you really see these sorts of discussions as nothing more than legalistic quibbling I would remind you of the fact that the current Magisterium clearly thinks otherwise. You have not really expressed any kind of constructive viewpoint. I would like to know exactly what you think and why you think that way on this subject. If I were to make a general judgment based on your posts I might suppose you are rather indifferent and perhaps see liturgical worship as a free for all.

Peace.

[Noel's angel]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1238570' date='Apr 11 2007, 10:45 AM']Ok, perhaps you don't have the same appreciation for Liturgy that some here apparently have. But I'm sure even you would draw the line somewhere. I'm sure such extreme cases as the clown Mass, the "Barney" Mass, the Halloween Mass, the Talk Show Mass, etc. would be enough to prick your sense of the dignity and sanctity of the Mass.

That is one aspect of this kind of discussion as I see it; the inherent dignity of the Divine Liturgy, the embodiment of the sacred and transcendent as well as the literal participation in sacred Mysteries which unfolds in liturgical action and symbolism.
The other major aspect that has already been introduced is the enactment and embodiment of sacred truth, or doctrine in the liturgical form. The consequence of this second aspect is that liturgy can be evaluated in terms of its efficacy to express the theological contents of the events in a proper mode and in truth.
Bad liturgy not only obscures the meaning of what is taking place but can in effect tell a lie or express false doctrine in its form.

I brought up the extreme cases above as an attempt to establish some common ground. I'm sure we both agree that there is an inherent dignity to liturgical prayer and that there must be limits or a kind of structure which is proper to authentic liturgy.

Many popular liturgical trends of the last 40 years or so have been inspired by false or questionable doctrines and/or ideologies. This is a big part of the reason why many Catholics get upset about this subject. One big example would be the often ideological agenda to make the liturgy more "horizontal". The reasons for this usually sound good enough, but all too often it is pushed to an extreme that, in my opinion as well as that of many others, obscures the essential meaning of the Sacred Liturgy and thus does violence to the essential character and meaning of the Liturgy.

If you really see these sorts of discussions as nothing more than legalistic quibbling I would remind you of the fact that the current Magisterium clearly thinks otherwise. You have not really expressed any kind of constructive viewpoint. I would like to know exactly what you think and why you think that way on this subject. If I were to make a general judgment based on your posts I might suppose you are rather indifferent and perhaps see liturgical worship as a free for all.

Peace.[/quote]

Hold on a sec...I don't think you can claim that he doesn't have the same appreciation for the Liturgy as others on this thread. You're overstepping the mark there L_D.

[N/A Gone]

Seany, Seany, Sweet Seany...

I have an huge appreciatation for the liturgy, but it is a liturgy that does not exist in our present church. The majority of catholic churches appear so protestant that the only difference is (sometimes) the music and movements. The modern litugry is not something I have a passion for the need for respect that can best be summed up in the sig by Ms. Phatcatholic

[quote]When you are before the altar where Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are amongst men; but believe that there are troops of angels and archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration.
– St. John Chrysostom[/quote]

If that happens with latin, or with english cool. But the focus should be that worship experience and the ability to let the newest person participate in that veneration. I have a real issue with when this dialogue becomes fundamentalist, caught on the anal-ity. But I have a bigger issue with the openess and settle degrading of the mass. Our current structure is within the grasp of allowing a"clown mass" and "talk show mass"--I just want the reason to be primary, more than the details. Ok, im ranting. (sorry...I almost got drawn into being a trad sympathetic, and this issue pains me)

[Laudate_Dominum]

Noel's Angel,
For the record the keyword in my opening statement was 'perhaps', it was a question not a 'claim'.

I thought the rest of the post would make clear that my intention was not to actually accuse anyone of anything but to reflect back something of the impression that I was getting from the sum of Rev's previous posts in an attempt to further understanding. In fact, it worked because the Rev's intentions and issues have been clarified and made more explicit. See also 'if I were to make a judgment' toward the end which is hardly the same as putting forth an actual judgment.

Rev,

After reading your last post I tend to think that we agree in substance. Apart from addressing specific instances of liturgical abuse or something, these sorts of discussions are more or less abstract for me. I think it is fascinating and often edifying to think about the depths of Liturgy and the Sacred Mysteries that unfold therein. So if I am asserting an opinion regarding the use of Latin, liturgical posture, or some other such thing I am not doing so in the stereotypical radtrad fashion. My views are not ideologically motivated and if I do at times seem rigid in my assessment of things there is typically a very solid reason behind it (or at least I hope). I do believe that Liturgy has an objective character, but I do not emphasize this to the exclusion of the subjective. I am too aware of the history of the Liturgy and the valid plurality of Liturgical forms as well as Liturgical piety to fall into that. But on the other hand my knowledge of the history of the Liturgy and the beauty of the plurality of its forms is precisely what gives me that conviction of its objective nature.

Things that make me get personal on these issues: 1. the reality of rogue liturgists who see the Mass as their own personal creative outlet (I've encountered this enough in my life to feel disturbed--the clown mass is the iconic, albeit extreme, example); 2. Sacrilege and/or Eucharistic desecration (my experiences in this department have contributed to many of my convictions to the effect that many of the more common liturgical abuses should just plain not be happening).

Then of course there is the bare fact of liturgical norms and guidelines instituted by the Church. I have little tolerance or sympathy for those who blatantly ignore and defy the Church on these matters because it is obstinate disobedience and arrogant presumption.

But like I said early on, the vast majority of the time that I discuss the Liturgy I am doing so on strictly abstract terms. I'm more interested in the theological nature of the Liturgy than the rubrics and such for their own sake.

I hope this explains something of where I'm coming from on this stuff. :-)

[photosynthesis]

There's something so comforting about chanting the Asperges. It reminds the soul that it is in good hands, that the Mass one is about to experience will be offered with the proper respect and dignity associated with a sacrament. Everything about it (the tune, the act of singing, the words) fills my heart with joy because I know that I am about to experience something that is ttuly profitable for my soul!

[N/A Gone]

L_D,

Recommend a book. I have the Hahn liturgy book. I think I have an unhealthy balance between devotion to the liturgy, and my baptist anti-fundamentalist worry about the heart not the details.