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

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1241392' date='Apr 13 2007, 09:09 AM']Furthermore, she has touched on the single most prevalent topic of the thread: the restoration of the 'versus populum position'.[/quote]
With all due respect, the "versus populum" (facing the people) position is an innovation of the late 1960s and early 70s. Thus, one cannot "restore" what was historically never done, and what is in open contradiction to the liturgical tradition of both East and West. As I said earlier in this thread, the priest and the people facing east together while praying is an Apostolic Tradition attested to by many of the Fathers (cf. St. John Damascene, [u]De fide Orthodoxa[/u], Book IV, Chapter 12; and St. Basil, [u]On the Holy Spirit[/u], Chapter 27; et al.).

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The thread is about what people would like to see restored to the Roman Liturgy. Now certainly, that may make people who are attached to the novelties of the last 40 years upset, but -- of course -- the thread is about the restoration of traditional liturgical practices. As a Byzantine Catholic, who has a lot of Eastern Orthodox friends, I can say unequivocally that the restoration of ancient practices within the liturgy of the Roman Church would greatly benefit ecumenism.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1241390' date='Apr 13 2007, 09:08 AM']I've heard plenty of grumbling from other members. It sounds like you're trying to make her feel guilty for expressing an opinion.[/quote]
I did not say that there was "no" grumbling; instead, I said that the thread is not about grumbling.

That said, I do not see how Noel's grumbling about the grumbling is constructive. Such is life I suppose.

God bless,
Todd

[Aloysius]

it's painfully obvious how you're just distracting away from the real liturgical issues being discussed by decrying grumbling and saying there are more important things to be considered. sure, if everyone here was not actually focusing on Christ when they attended liturgies but instead focusing on different liturgical problems; which certainly happens, there are people who go to mass and get too distracted by their knowledge of the way liturgy should be done to truly worship Christ. that is certainly a mindset to be avoided.

but this is not about wanting it done MY way, it's about wanting it done the apostolic way, the way the Fathers call upon it to be done, the way which best expresses our faith. even if you support the Versus Populum position, you have to learn something fundamental from the Ad Orientum position. As I said before, we are still all supposed to be looking to the "liturgical east", that has merely been replaced by a location in between the priest and the people. Pope Benedict XVI supports the idea of fixing the liturgical symbolism by placing a large double sided crucifix at the side of the altar in between the priest and the people. Either way, that is the direction to which both the priest and the people ought to be looking. So no matter what, there is something to be learned by the Ad Orientum Position even for the Versus Populum position: because the Church has always insisted upon maintaining the symbolism of looking towards the liturgical east EVEN in the Versus Populum position.

and to marvel at the beauty of old rituals like the Asperges and wonder why they were ever taken out, wishing that they would be restored; is certainly nothing like the terrible thing you have painted it to be. we just wish the Asperges would be included before mass again; or that the prayers at the foot of the altar would be done again, or that the priest would not be front-and-center where the Tabernacle used to be, or that the priest should express his representing of the people by facing the same way as they do.

[Maggyie]

I think God gives some people a natural interest in the liturgy and other people an interest in other aspects of the Church like catechesis or apologetics. To people who don't share that interest, a lot of it looks like nit-picking, and maybe some of it is

I would love if the Asperges was brought back for Sunday Masses! It wouldn't even have to be in Latin; I think the Adoremus Hymnal has a setting in English. Don't know how good the translation is, though

[franciscanheart]

apotheoun, you'll have to excuse my ignorance of latin terms. i simply quoted aloysius when i said what i said.


i seems like you all like to make your opposition feel stupid and like they cant carry a conversation. noel's angel only carried on what had already started here. when she stood her ground and said that she thought that was one thing that SHOULDN'T be changed, you started telling her that she was grumbling too much and that she was trying to distract from 'real' issues.


please.


get over yourselves.

[Apotheoun]

Hugheyforlife,

Correcting an error has nothing to do with trying to belittle the person who made the mistake in the first place. Sadly, you are reading things into my posts that are not in fact present within them.

Nevertheless, my point stands: Facing East during prayer is an Apostolic Tradition supported by the universal practice of both East and West, while the [i]versus populum[/i] position is a modern innovation.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Accuracy is important for its own sake.

[Maggyie]

One of the things I found fascinating in my comparative religion studies at college was how often directionality plays a role in the various faith traditions. While most Reform congregations have the modern set-up, if you ever visit an Orthodox synagogue you will find that the Jews in the congregation and their rabbi pray in the same direction (toward Jerusalem) during the service. The Christian tradition of directional prayer grew directly out of this ancient practice. Of course, adherents of Islam also pray in one direction, toward Mecca.

Cool stuff

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Noel' post='1240204' date='Apr 12 2007, 05:34 PM']This IS like old people moaning on a porch. Somehow I don't think Jesus is looking down on the world saying "I'm so mad at the Church...all these priests facing the people, it's disgusting" (etc. etc.). I think he's more interested in the fact that we're all sitting here in our nice homes with our nice computers while, by the time it takes to write one of these posts, about 10 kids die of hunger. Maybe it's time to look at the bigger picture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure He's upset at clown Masses, Barney Mass etc. because they are disrespectful to Him, but the way a priest faces has no bearing on the amount of respect he has for Christ.[/quote]


[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1242658' date='Apr 14 2007, 09:35 AM']apotheoun, you'll have to excuse my ignorance of latin terms. i simply quoted aloysius when i said what i said.
i seems like you all like to make your opposition feel stupid and like they cant carry a conversation. noel's angel only carried on what had already started here. when she stood her ground and said that she thought that was one thing that SHOULDN'T be changed, you started telling her that she was grumbling too much and that she was trying to distract from 'real' issues.
please.
get over yourselves.[/quote]

no she didn't. she said we were moaning and that this wasn't an important thing to worry about and it didn't matter et cetera. we merely responded to that. sheesh, where do you see "belittling" going on? if anything, she came on belittling our ideas about the importance of these things.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Noel' post='1240204' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:34 PM']This IS like old people moaning on a porch. Somehow I don't think Jesus is looking down on the world saying "I'm so mad at the Church...all these priests facing the people, it's disgusting" (etc. etc.). I think he's more interested in the fact that we're all sitting here in our nice homes with our nice computers while, by the time it takes to write one of these posts, about 10 kids die of hunger. Maybe it's time to look at the bigger picture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure He's upset at clown Masses, Barney Mass etc. because they are disrespectful to Him, but the way a priest faces has no bearing on the amount of respect he has for Christ.[/quote]

Thats a good bit of perspective. When examining liturgy, we can easily get lost in the details of it because it is the public prayer of the Church, the source and summit of our lives as Christians. But when we cease to focus on whether what we are doing at liturgy is transformative or not, and instead focus on the actions themselves, we lose the point of liturgy. If the "goal" of Mass is to offer a sacrifice so that Christ is present [i]par excellence[/i] to us that we may consume him and be transformed by his grace so that we may in turn be Christ for each other, focusing on the direction we face lessens our ability to be transformed by God's graces present in the sacraments of the Church. This is not to say we should accepet shoddy liturgy by any means. Poorly executed liturgy is damaging to the entire Church However, it seems proper to encourage a balance of concerns: liturgy as a pure form and liturgy as a transforming medium.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1243187' date='Apr 14 2007, 06:06 PM']no she didn't. she said we were moaning and that this wasn't an important thing to worry about and it didn't matter et cetera. we merely responded to that. sheesh, where do you see "belittling" going on? if anything, she came on belittling our ideas about the importance of these things.[/quote]
notice she wasn't the first one to say that. she was AGREEING with someone else who had already said something similar. further, she was merely responding to you getting all bent out of shape over the direction the priest faces while saying mass.

[Maggyie]

Peace, brothers and sisters

When we talk about restoring things to the Latin rite, it is elements from the Tridentine era that first spring to mind. But of course, that's not the only period in the Church's history we could draw from. The liturgical reform re-introduced several features from the liturgy of the first days of Christianity, such as the communion procession, etc. Is there anything else from the Mass of the early Church that could enrich our modern liturgy?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1243344' date='Apr 14 2007, 10:53 PM']Thats a good bit of perspective. When examining liturgy, we can easily get lost in the details of it because it is the public prayer of the Church, the source and summit of our lives as Christians. But when we cease to focus on whether what we are doing at liturgy is transformative or not, and instead focus on the actions themselves, we lose the point of liturgy. If the "goal" of Mass is to offer a sacrifice so that Christ is present [i]par excellence[/i] to us that we may consume him and be transformed by his grace so that we may in turn be Christ for each other, focusing on the direction we face lessens our ability to be transformed by God's graces present in the sacraments of the Church. This is not to say we should accepet shoddy liturgy by any means. Poorly executed liturgy is damaging to the entire Church However, it seems proper to encourage a balance of concerns: liturgy as a pure form and liturgy as a transforming medium.[/quote]
I agree, and said something to that effect in one of my previous posts.

both noel's angel and yourself, hughey, seem to be trivializing the direction the priest faces. I have merely pointed out that I think that it is wrong to trivialize that, and that it is merely a distraction to try to say we should not talk about the nature of the two orientations because there are more important things to worry about. of course there are more important things to worry about, that doesn't mean we cannot try to come to a deeper understanding of this thing.

VII, what do you think about what I said about the liturgical east being maintained as the spot between the priest and the people in the Versus Populum position. Do you agree? If so, do you think we should put something in place to call attention to that concept? (like a crucifix)

all this indignation is absolutely ludicrus, and I will not continue to entertain it. no offense has ever been intended, we have merely been responding to critiques of our positions. I (quite justifiably IMHO) dismissed one part of the argument as distracting (the: there are more important things so let's not worry about this) and proceeded to respond to everything else she had to say. No offence or belittling was ever intended in the slightest... thinking back, if I expressed too much abrasiveness towards anyone in this discussion, I think I might have expressed some things in my response to VIILiturgist too strongly... I do apologize to him if I did (I only remember vaguely being slightly annoyed when I wrote a post a while back on the thread, but I'm too tired to go retreive it and figure out if I actually said anything with too much annoyedness or abrasiveness) but I do not understand the indignation coming out of Noel's Angel or hughey. If you go into any discussion about anything, of great importance or of little importance, and say "well, this isn't the most important thing to be worried about", people will dismiss that as irrelevant to the actual discussion. I don't care if it's two people discussing the morality of burning ants with magnifying glasses or theologians discussing how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle, it's just not a valid position to take in a discussion. as I've admitted, there is an important PERSPECTIVE to have when people are attending the liturgies, that they should not get caught up in trivial matters to the point of distracting themselves from worship, but discussing these matters is an entirely different story and in discussing the liturgy, everything that is done is important. some things for the sake of expressing the unity of the universal Church, some for the sake of correctly expressing our faith about the Nature of God, Christ, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, some for the sake of preserving that which has been passed down to us if there is no serious reason not to do so.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1244164' date='Apr 15 2007, 06:06 AM']VII, what do you think about what I said about the liturgical east being maintained as the spot between the priest and the people in the Versus Populum position. Do you agree? If so, do you think we should put something in place to call attention to that concept? (like a crucifix)[/quote]

I agree with you that the liturgical east is in the center of the priest and the faithful, at the same time cautioning against portraying God as being present in a more concentrated way in some specific place at liturgy. I would, however, not call attention to the modified liturgical east with a crucifix. Rather, I think we need to make a greater catechetical effort to turn people on to the reality of Christ being present on the altar. If the Eucharist is truly ordered to eschatology, then I think waiting for Christ's coming, going out to meet him is best represented in actually facing him present sacramentally on the altar, as our bread of life. A crucifix seems to complicate that, and (in a less than perfect world) seems like it would be perceived as "decoration" rather than a focal point for the eschatological dimension of liturgy. If we bemoan the low percentage of Catholics who believe in the Real Presence, then I think this might be a good starting point.

Calling God down among us, as opposed to looking towards him, also might provide useful context for the eschatological aspects of liturgy. Again, I think it becomes an issue of emphasis. Every liturgy does not emphasize the same theological tenants. Our collects, prefaces, POCs, and lectionary readings all change. Could not presidential posture be another "soft spot?"

[Aloysius]

that's why I try to be clear that the liturgical east is symbolic whereas the actual Eucharistic presence is substantial.

I kind of like this idea for its eloquence, but I still don't think I could support it. Would it actually be proscribed by the liturgical texts that on this or that day this or that position should be taken? If not, you know it would just turn out doing nothing to say "the priest can face ad orientum on days when he feels the readings emphasize the transcendence of God"... but anyway, I think changing the position depending on the day wouldn't be a good idea. I like the priest turning around at different parts of the mass. Like for the Orate Fratres, or the Ecce Agnus Dei, et cetera. I think keeping the altar facing the other way for the sake of the sacrificial symbolism; but then perhaps adding more times for the priest to turn around to face the people, would best express what you're talking about, both aspects of the way we're worshipping God.

anyway, my idea of the fixing of the versus populum position would be something like this altar era posted:

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/uploads/monthly_04_2007/post-3055-1176691720_thumb.jpg[/img]

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1245277' date='Apr 16 2007, 12:14 AM']that's why I try to be clear that the liturgical east is symbolic whereas the actual Eucharistic presence is substantial.

I kind of like this idea for its eloquence, but I still don't think I could support it. Would it actually be proscribed by the liturgical texts that on this or that day this or that position should be taken? If not, you know it would just turn out doing nothing to say "the priest can face ad orientum on days when he feels the readings emphasize the transcendence of God"... but anyway, I think changing the position depending on the day wouldn't be a good idea. I like the priest turning around at different parts of the mass. Like for the Orate Fratres, or the Ecce Agnus Dei, et cetera. I think keeping the altar facing the other way for the sake of the sacrificial symbolism; but then perhaps adding more times for the priest to turn around to face the people, would best express what you're talking about, both aspects of the way we're worshipping God.

anyway, my idea of the fixing of the versus populum position would be something like this altar era posted:

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/uploads/monthly_04_2007/post-3055-1176691720_thumb.jpg[/img][/quote]

I don't think the liturgical texts would have to specifiy anything. We select to some degree the Eucharisitic pryaer based on the day. We select ordinary time weekday lenten prefaces based on the liturgy of the day. We select music based on the lectionary. None of these are legislated anywhere. Its an organic and local use of the exisiting texts. Surely, variable posture wouldn't work in all communities, to be sure, but I think it has viable potential in some more catechized and litugically educated parishes.

Adding more parts where the priest faces the people doesn't seem quite the way to go. When the priest faces the people, most of the time, it is when he is giving instruction "Pray my friends..." "Behold, this is the lamb of God..." Those moments don't seem to be exactly prayerful as they do instructive. The goal isn't for the priest to have face time with the people because he wants to justifiy spending money on an eyebrow waxing. The goal is for the priest and people to face each other as they pray, and in doing so, see Christ in each other.

I might also add that the Eucharisitic prayer does not always focus soley on the sacrifical aspect of the sacrament. For examply, while the EP1 for Reconciliation cannot be prayed authenticaly without knwloedge of the cross, the overiding theme in them seems to be the willingness of God to accept us back even when we stray from his friendship. Since the priest acts in persona Christi, I think facing the people as a way of ackowledging the approachability offered in the sacrament of reconciliation is valuable. Hence, sacrificial symbolism is not always the most desireable form.