Laudate_Dominum Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 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 Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 (edited) [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 Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 [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 Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 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 Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 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 Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 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 Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 [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 Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 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 Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 LD, read Bugnini's "Reform of the Liturgy" to see what influenced the decision.
CatholicCrusader Posted March 30, 2004 Author Posted March 30, 2004 [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.
Dave Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 Regarding the statements about the EWTN Masses facing ad orientem, actually, back when the nuns were there, the Masses in the chapel were meant for them, so since they were on the other side of the altar, the priest faced toward them. It really wasn't an ad orientem issue.
PedroX Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the priest offer the mass on behalf of the people? If this is true, then why wouldn't he be facing the same direction as the people? In other words with his back visible. If this is not the case, then it would seem to me that there is no great cause to face towards the people. Any who would argue for facing towards the people must stop and contemplate this change. We have gone from having our priests offer on our behalf, and leading us towards God to having our priests show us the consecration. Is the symbolism worth it? For the record, I worship at NO mass, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ is really and wholly present. However, I miss the symbolism and truth of our inheritance. peace...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 I think a big part of the issue too is that the throughout history the priest faced his back to the people and there is symbolism and theological meaning behind this. And for this to suddenly change is cause for wonder. It is a break from tradition so it causes one to ask why. And as of yet I am not aware of any legitimate reason for doing this. The few things I've heard are sketchy and sometimes even a bit heterodox. But I'm open to the possibility that there is some mysterious good reason for it, though I would need a great deal of convincing to accept that it is better than the normal way. And Cardinal Ratzinger has made some awesome points regarding the priest facing ad orientem which makes me wonder if this may someday (hopefully) be restored in the Roman Rite. God bless.
Pio Nono Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 JMJ 3/30 - Fifth Tuesday of Lent To play devil's advocate... Sure, the Protestants took the high altar out of their churches and a separated "table" was a consequence of the Reformation...... But pews in churches were also a consequence of the Reformation. Before the Reformation, no one [i]ever[/i] sat in a church. There's a lot of good reasons not to sit, but the Church doesn't seem to have a problem with sitting.
Aloysius Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 i would love it if the priest faced the same direction of the people, it makes a ton more sense! but i'm not so concerned about the east direction. i mean, it's good symbolism, but it's not NECESSARY, i see no need to return to that especially after so many churches have been built not facing the east. if i were pope i'd make it so they all hadta face the same way as the people because it just makes more sense. that picture's awesome, ABC, what is the date of it? [img]http://perso.club-internet.fr/prilep/galerie2/cata/catacombes703.jpg[/img]
popestpiusx Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Mar 30 2004, 12:52 PM'] JMJ 3/30 - Fifth Tuesday of Lent To play devil's advocate... Sure, the Protestants took the high altar out of their churches and a separated "table" was a consequence of the Reformation...... But pews in churches were also a consequence of the Reformation. Before the Reformation, no one [i]ever[/i] sat in a church. There's a lot of good reasons not to sit, but the Church doesn't seem to have a problem with sitting. [/quote] The pews are accidental to the liturgy not essential. This doesn't affect the Mass itself one iota. An altar is esential for sacrifice. Replacing it with a table connotes a theological change (or shift rather than a change) in the case of the N.O.
CatholicCrusader Posted March 30, 2004 Author Posted March 30, 2004 No problem--always here to expound on the tradition of the Church. God bless.
popestpiusx Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Dave' date='Mar 30 2004, 11:35 AM'] Regarding the statements about the EWTN Masses facing ad orientem, actually, back when the nuns were there, the Masses in the chapel were meant for them, so since they were on the other side of the altar, the priest faced toward them. It really wasn't an ad orientem issue. [/quote] You are right of course, but the bishop turned it into one.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now