Latin Mass Discussion

katydid

La Fenetre wrote: »

Hymns are sung at Mass (and by the way only Psalms are found in scripture), scripture readings are read at mass, homily are given at mass, there are Charismatic Catholic groups, there are Catholic scripture groups, and countless other groups from Lectio divina, to benediction. There are wedding masses, funeral masses, baptisms. That's just the Catholic ones, many other Christian denominations have similar services and groups. So your your claims about Catholic and other Christian denominations are untrue.

In fairness, I think (I stand open to correction) he was referring to the kind of setting where people would quote scripture and sing as the spirit moved them. The kind of thing the charismatics do in a lively way, and that the Quakers do in a slightly calmer way. (Although their name reminds us there was a time when their worship was more dramatic)

ucseae1

Is this thread going in the Catholic-Protestant discussion? I don't understand where it is going. Isn't it supposed to be about the Catholic Latin mass?

I saw a mass by the ordinariate of our lady of walsingham in Westminster. Its the High Anglican rite that moved to the Catholic Church. it was ad orientem. Most rites seem to be ad orientem except the new Roman.

Thinkingaboutit

Some dioceses, per bishop's orders, have the New Mass ad orientem.

I find some Protestant (and Protestant orientated) counter-claims funny. Luther edited out the Epistle of James and Apocrypha, two books which had to go because they went against his heterodoxy. Lutherans also used a lot of Latin and offered their Mass (I think they called it that) ad orientem until the late seventeenth century.

Peregrinus

There are a few points in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal where the priest is excplicitly required to face the people - the Greeting, after the Washing of Hands, the Pax, the Agnus Dei, the Communion Prayer, the Dismissal.

Apart from those points, he can face the people, or face ad orientem, as he prefers.

The bishop can make it known that he wants mass celebrated facing the people, or alternatively that he wants it celebrated ad orientem (apart from the points where facing the people is required). He can't oblige his priests to conform to his wishes, but the prudent priest will do so.

Thinkingaboutit

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are a few points in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal where the priest is excplicitly required to face the people - the Greeting, after the Washing of Hands, the Pax, the Agnus Dei, the Communion Prayer, the Dismissal.

Apart from those points, he can face the people, or face ad orientem, as he prefers.

The bishop can make it known that he wants mass celebrated facing the people, or alternatively that he wants it celebrated ad orientem (apart from the points where facing the people is required). He can't oblige his priests to conform to his wishes, but the prudent priest will do so.

Yes, it always struck me that the General Instruction seemed implicitly to treat ad orientem as the norm, yet versus populum is the absolute norm, nearly everywhere. If priests turned east en masse:pac:, New Mass hearers would be puzzled, frankly. There are things like the saying the Tridentine Mass where a priest could licitly dissent from his bishop, but he might find his living become a harder one, if he does.

Peregrinus

There are lots of things on which a priest could licitly dissent from his bishop, but would be unwise do do so. "Licit" does not mean wise, prudent or well-thought out. A priest who wished to say the Extraordinary Form when his bishop would rather he didn't is in almost exactly the same position as a priest in one of the dioceses you mentioned in post #124 whose bishop wants him to celebrate the Ordinary Form ad orientem. In both cases, the priest can do what he wants without offending the liturgical rules, but he may offend against his duty of obedience to his bishop.

I don't think the GIRM "implicitly treats ad orientem as the norm". On the contrary, it explicitly says (at para. 299) that it is desirable, wherever possible, that mass should be celebrated facing the people. In addition, as already pointed out, it explicitly mandates facing the people on several occasions; it mandates facing the altar during the priest's communion. It never mandates facing ad orientem.

The norm has always been that mass should be said facing the altar, which is the location where the sacrifice is represented. For that reason altars should be free-standing (para 299), so that the priest can face both the altar and the people. If an older church has an altar placed against the back wall (as was common) a new free-standing altar should be erected (para. 303) and to avoid distracting attention from it the old altar should not be decorated. Facing ad orientem is not forbidden (except at certain moments) but it's indicated to be undesirable, unless the arrangement of the church makes it necessary.

Thinkingaboutit

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are lots of things on which a priest could licitly dissent from his bishop, but would be unwise do do so. "Licit" does not mean wise, prudent or well-thought out. A priest who wished to say the Extraordinary Form when his bishop would rather he didn't is in almost exactly the same position as a priest in one of the dioceses you mentioned in post #124 whose bishop wants him to celebrate the Ordinary Form ad orientem. In both cases, the priest can do what he wants without offending the liturgical rules, but he may offend against his duty of obedience to his bishop.

I don't think the GIRM "implicitly treats ad orientem as the norm". On the contrary, it explicitly says (at para. 299) that it is desirable, wherever possible, that mass should be celebrated facing the people. In addition, as already pointed out, it explicitly mandates facing the people on several occasions; it mandates facing the altar during the priest's communion. It never mandates facing ad orientem.
The norm has always been that mass should be said facing the altar, which is the location where the sacrifice is represented. For that reason altars should be free-standing (para 299), so that the priest can face both the altar and the people. If an older church has an altar placed against the back wall (as was common) a new free-standing altar should be erected (para. 303) and to avoid distracting attention from it the old altar should not be decorated. Facing ad orientem is not forbidden (except at certain moments) but it's indicated to be undesirable, unless the arrangement of the church makes it necessary.

True, I checked and noticed that, but I suspect it was a preference to keep the Mass largely ad orientem.

Ad orientem means the priest and people together face God, while versus populum seems to give credence to the idea that V2 (and allied liturgical changes) was about the Gospel of Man.

uck51js9zml2yt

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

True, I checked and noticed that, but I suspect it was a preference to keep the Mass largely ad orientem.

Ad orientem means the priest and people together face God, while versus populum seems to give credence to the idea that V2 (and allied liturgical changes) was about the Gospel of Man.

How do you think they are facing God ?

Thinkingaboutit

Facing East or the people and priest facing in one direction (not all altars face east, for instance the High Altar in St Kevin's parish church for example) has in Tradition (of nineteen hundred years) meant offering prayer and sacrifice, adoration and worship with the priest leading in persona Christi, as one to God.

Saint Augustine said:

"When we rise to pray, we turn East, where heaven begins. And we do this not because God is there, as if He had moved away from the other directions on earth..., but rather to help us remember to turn our mind towards a higher order, that is, to God."

Old Catholics (a Dutch and German split which arose over the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility and other matters, at the Vatican Council, they can be characterised as liberal leaning) and some Episcopalians also worship ad orientem.

uck51js9zml2yt

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Facing East or the people and priest facing in one direction (not all altars face east, for instance the High Altar in St Kevin's parish church for example) has in Tradition (of nineteen hundred years) meant offering prayer and sacrifice, adoration and worship with the priest leading in persona Christi, as one to God.

Saint Augustine said:



Old Catholics (a Dutch and German split which arose over the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility and other matters, at the Vatican Council, they can be characterised as liberal leaning) and some Episcopalians also worship ad orientem.

Who said God was to the east and that's where heaven began.
God is everywhere. He's also not limited to buildings or in the RC case a little box.
We know the Jews prayed towards Jerusalem as that was where the temple was and for a time God chose to reside there until the sin of the people got so great that He left. But as He said Himself,_He does not reside on buildings made with hands.

Interesting that the RCC split over infallibility. From hinaults input we were led to believe it hadn't split unlike the multitude of heretical Protestant denominations.

Always something new to learn on boards

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are a few points in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal where the priest is excplicitly required to face the people - the Greeting, after the Washing of Hands, the Pax, the Agnus Dei, the Communion Prayer, the Dismissal.

Apart from those points, he can face the people, or face ad orientem, as he prefers.

The bishop can make it known that he wants mass celebrated facing the people, or alternatively that he wants it celebrated ad orientem (apart from the points where facing the people is required). He can't oblige his priests to conform to his wishes, but the prudent priest will do so.

It's this kind of nit picking that makes non-Christians shake their heads...

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Facing East or the people and priest facing in one direction (not all altars face east, for instance the High Altar in St Kevin's parish church for example) has in Tradition (of nineteen hundred years) meant offering prayer and sacrifice, adoration and worship with the priest leading in persona Christi, as one to God.
.

Can you not lead while facing the people you are leading? Do you think Jesus turned his back on his disciples when he prayed with them?

uck51js9zml2yt

katydid wrote: »

Can you not lead while facing the people you are leading? Do you think Jesus turned his back on his disciples when he prayed with them?

Seemingly its to do with "facing heaven"..its in another thread.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

It's this kind of nit picking that makes non-Christians shake their heads...

I dunno about that. Lots of non-Christian traditions take their rituals equally seriously.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Can you not lead while facing the people you are leading? Do you think Jesus turned his back on his disciples when he prayed with them?

The idea of the ad orientem posture is that priest and people face the same direction. Thus their posture emphasises their unity and their common orientation towards God.

And I have to say that from my (limited) experience of the ad orientem posture this body language works quite well in a small church where priest and people are close together. Essentially, they are a bunch of people facing the same altar from the same side, with the priest at the front of the bunch. The emphasis is on the priest as part of (and representative of) the congregation. The bigger the church (and the congregation) gets, though, and the more pronounced the division between the sanctuary and the nave, the less well it works.

"Ad orientem" means "towards the East". Traditionally, the altar is placed at the east end of the church for symbolic reasons. ("Christ, the light of the world"). This is yet another tradition inherited from Judaism (synagogues are oriented towards Jerusalem which, in most of the Roman world, meant towards the east) and given an explicitly Christian significance. Even where the altar isn't actually at the east end, the end of the church with the altar in it is referred to as the "liturgical east", and those facing the altar are said to be facing "ad orientem".

(The priest doesn't, incidentally, have to be at the front. In the early Christian era, in a Greek-cross shaped church, the altar used very often be at the centre of the church, at the crossing. There's some evidence that, for a long time, the practice was that the entire congregation would face (liturgical) east, with the altar (and, therefore, the priest) in the middle of the congregation, not at the front. This meant that some of the congregation actually had their backs to the altar (and the priest). But they all maintained a common orientation, which was the point. So it seems that, historically, people didn't face east because the altar was there. Rather, altars came to be located at the eastern end because that's the way the people faced.)

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

The idea of the ad orientem posture is that priest and people face the same direction. Thus their posture emphasises their unity and their common orientation towards God.

And I have to say that from my (limited) experience of the ad orientem posture this body language works quite well in a small church where priest and people are close together. Essentially, they are a bunch of people facing the same altar from the same side, with the priest at the front of the bunch. The emphasis is on the priest as part of (and representative of) the congregation. The bigger the church (and the congregation) gets, though, and the more pronounced the division between the sanctuary and the nave, the less well it works.

"Ad orientem" means "towards the East". Traditionally, the altar is placed at the east end of the church for symbolic reasons. ("Christ, the light of the world"). This is yet another tradition inherited from Judaism (synagogues are oriented towards Jerusalem which, in most of the Roman world, meant towards the east) and given an explicitly Christian significance. Even where the altar isn't actually at the east end, the end of the church with the altar in it is referred to as the "liturgical east", and those facing the altar are said to be facing "ad orientem".

(The priest doesn't, incidentally, have to be at the front. In the early Christian era, in a Greek-cross shaped church, the altar used very often be at the centre of the church, at the crossing. There's some evidence that, for a long time, the practice was that the entire congregation would face (liturgical) east, with the altar (and, therefore, the priest) in the middle of the congregation, not at the front. This meant that some of the congregation actually had their backs to the altar (and the priest). But they all maintained a common orientation, which was the point. So it seems that, historically, people didn't face east because the altar was there. Rather, altars came to be located at the eastern end because that's the way the people faced.)

I've never been in a situation where the priest was facing away from the people, in either a small or large church, so I can't really comment on how it works, but I do understand what you're saying. However, being used to the priest facing the people and interacting with them, all I can say it that it works, and it feels right. But if people want it the other way, fine.

What I find depressing is that people seem to put so much value into this and other elements of the celebration of the Eucharist. Some of the others, including whether or not the priest joins his thumb and forefinger, just make me shake my head in bewilderment. It's as if all these things affect the central act of the Eucharist in some way, which makes no sense to me. Surely it's the intention and the reverence of the celebrant and congregation that makes the celebration valid, not the rubrics?

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno about that. Lots of non-Christian traditions take their rituals equally seriously.

Oh indeed. But are there not some things we should keep a united front on, such as agreeing to disagree about minutae of rubrics and rituals in the interest of the central message of the Eucharist?

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Oh indeed. But are there not some things we should keep a united front on, such as agreeing to disagree about minutae of rubrics and rituals in the interest of the central message of the Eucharist?

I think we've agreed to disagree vociferously.

Plus, trivial fact of the day. The Anglicans, natch, were not immune from liturgical disputes. But in yet another ilustration of the Anglican genius for finding the via media on the facing-east-or-facing-the-people controversy they eventually settled on a brilliant compromise; the celebrant was to face north, with the east on his right side and the people on his left. The prayer book of Edward VI required this, and the prayer book of Elizabeth confirmed it.

I have attended Anglican communions where this posture is still used. But I don't know how common it is today.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think we've agreed to disagree vociferously.

Plus, trivial fact of the day. The Anglicans, natch, were not immune from liturgical disputes. But in yet another ilustration of the Anglican genius for finding the via media on the facing-east-or-facing-the-people controversy they eventually settled on a brilliant compromise; the celebrant was to face north, with the east on his right side and the people on his left. The prayer book of Edward VI required this, and the prayer book of Elizabeth confirmed it.

I have attended Anglican communions where this posture is still used. But I don't know how common it is today.

I thought that we would at least agree on the centrality of the Eucharist itself.

Whatever about historical trivia, I would have imagined that you wouldn't be a stickler for these things in a modern context.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

I thought that we would at least agree on the centrality of the Eucharist itself.

We do.

katydid wrote: »

Whatever about historical trivia, I would have imagined that you wouldn't be a stickler for these things in a modern context.

I'm not, at all. I came (back) into this thread, really, to rebut the idea that one of these postures is intrinsically better than the other.

I'm not much of a fan of the ad orientem posture myself but, for those who like it, I can see its appeal.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

We do.


I'm not, at all. I came (back) into this thread, really, to rebut the idea that one of these postures is intrinsically better than the other.

I'm not much of a fan of the ad orientem posture myself but, for those who like it, I can see its appeal.

Fair enough. To each his own.

I am really baffled by stuff like whether the priest joins his thumb and forefinger, though. That kind of thing is putting form before substance.

Peregrinus

Well, it puzzles me too. But, strictly speaking, unless we know why it's considered signficant that the priest should do this, we can't say that it's a matter of form rather than substance. Those who advocate it could have substantial reasons for doing so (though I can't for the life of me think what they might be).

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it puzzles me too. But, strictly speaking, unless we know why it's considered signficant that the priest should do this, we can't say that it's a matter of form rather than substance. Those who advocate it could have substantial reasons for doing so (though I can't for the life of me think what they might be).

I have asked, several times, but no explanations have been forthcoming.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

I have asked, several times, but no explanations have been forthcoming.

Google is your friend. Apparently the practice is (or was) that after holding the host at the moment of consecration (between thumb and index finger) the priest would keep his thumb and index figure together lest (a) there should be particle of the consecrated host adhering to them, and (b) if not kept pressed together, these particles might fall to the floor. He kept this, so far as practical, until the ablutions, when he would wash his hands.

So, symbolic, not substantial. A gesture of respect towards the consecrated elements.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Google is your friend. Apparently the practice is (or was) that after holding the host at the moment of consecration (between thumb and index finger) the priest would keep his thumb and index figure together lest (a) there should be particle of the consecrated host adhering to them, and (b) if not kept pressed together, these particles might fall to the floor. He kept this, so far as practical, until the ablutions, when he would wash his hands.

So, symbolic, not substantial. A gesture of respect towards the consecrated elements.

Google is the enemy of independent thinking. I'd rather have heard it from the people who think it's important. I suspect they don't even know why, other than it's the way it's always done...

Angels on the head of a pin stuff.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Google is the enemy of independent thinking. I'd rather have heard it from the people who think it's important. I suspect they don't even know why, other than it's the way it's always done...

If you'd followed the link, Katy, you would have found that it took to to a blog entry (which I found through Google) written on this subject by a person who thinks it's important, and who plainly does know his reasons for thinking so.

Far from Google being the enemy of independent thinking, then, in this instance Google is the tool through which you can find the thinking you are looking for. And if you use the tool to find the thinking, you are spared having to articulate suspicions which turn out to be unfounded.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you'd followed the link, Katy, you would have found that it took to to a blog entry (which I found through Google) written on this subject by a person who thinks it's important, and who plainly does know his reasons for thinking so.

Far from Google being the enemy of independent thinking, then, in this instance Google is the tool through which you can find the thinking you are looking for. And if you use the tool to find the thinking, you are spared having to articulate suspicions which turn out to be unfounded.

Fair enough; to be honest, I didn't see any need to follow the link, as the information was there.

But what I was talking about is that I asked the people on this thread to explain why they thought these minutiae were important, and got no answer. It's easy to google and find answers, but it's even more telling that those that claim these things are important aren't prepared to make their case.

Thinkingaboutit

katydid wrote: »

Google is the enemy of independent thinking. I'd rather have heard it from the people who think it's important. I suspect they don't even know why, other than it's the way it's always done...

Angels on the head of a pin stuff.

Is it?

Respect means nothing.

You are aware of the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Okay.

You contend the early Christians were horny-handed sons of toil sharing a meal in memory of Jesus at a table using cheap pottery. The evidence of Roman house churches or a villa like Lullington is that Christians respected their faith, that they used their best room, with a degree of decoration not found elsewhere in their home, together with their finest silverware. You have a fixedly Low Church Protestant historical imagination.

What Missal do people who hear the Tridentine Mass use? I have at times used what Missal is available in a church, but I've found the St Andrew's Missal useful. I found some, like my mother's Missal, seem to scatter much of the ordinary of the Mass, and other parts besides, every which way. There are, no doubt, good liturgical reasons for that, and these Missals do have ribbons to allow prayers for the day to be bookmarked, but it is a bit tiresome.

What of the Dialogue Mass /Missa dialogata? This means people deliberately saying responses that formerly the altar servers only said. It has been formalised since 1925 as a way of encouraging engagement with the Mass.

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Is it?

Respect means nothing.

You are aware of the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Okay.

You contend the early Christians were horny-handed sons of toil sharing a meal in memory of Jesus at a table using cheap pottery. The evidence of Roman house churches or a villa like Lullington is that Christians respected their faith, that they used their best room, with a degree of decoration not found elsewhere in their home, together with their finest silverware. You have a fixedly Low Church Protestant historical imagination.

What Missal do people who hear the Tridentine Mass use? I have at times used what Missal is available in a church, but I've found the St Andrew's Missal useful. I found some, like my mother's Missal, seem to scatter much of the ordinary of the Mass, and other parts besides, every which way. There are, no doubt, good liturgical reasons for that, and these Missals do have ribbons to allow prayers for the day to be bookmarked, but it is a bit tiresome.

What of the Dialogue Mass /Missa dialogata? This means people deliberately saying responses that formerly the altar servers only said. It has been formalised since 1925 as a way of encouraging engagement with the Mass.

I'm aware of the ROMAN Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Not all Catholics subscribe to that doctrine. What is your point? In terms of the understanding of the Real Presence, it really doesn't matter what way the priest faces or how he holds his hands. What matters is the reverence priest and people shoe.

The more the early church developed and became institutionalised, the more elaborate the celebration of the Eucharist became. But in the very early church, it was a simple meal, using simple implements. Just like Jesus and the disciples would have used. When Constantine legitimised Christianity, it took on the rites and rituals of existing Roman worship, which still exist in many of our present practices, from the geography of the church to the colours of robes.

The early Christians, the Roman Christians, latter day Christians - none was better, none was worse. We have adapted and altered some minor elements of Christian worship to suit circumstances and mentality, but we have kept the original spirit of worship.

There is nothing "protestant" or "catholic" about history. History is fact.

Thinkingaboutit

katydid wrote: »

I'm aware of the ROMAN Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Not all Catholics subscribe to that doctrine. What is your point? In terms of the understanding of the Real Presence, it really doesn't matter what way the priest faces or how he holds his hands. What matters is the reverence priest and people shoe.

The more the early church developed and became institutionalised, the more elaborate the celebration of the Eucharist became. But in the very early church, it was a simple meal, using simple implements. Just like Jesus and the disciples would have used. When Constantine legitimised Christianity, it took on the rites and rituals of existing Roman worship, which still exist in many of our present practices, from the geography of the church to the colours of robes.

The early Christians, the Roman Christians, latter day Christians - none was better, none was worse. We have adapted and altered some minor elements of Christian worship to suit circumstances and mentality, but we have kept the original spirit of worship.

There is nothing "protestant" or "catholic" about history. History is fact.

It is fact, sometimes unclear facts, but not anything you bother with too much. You have no source except your imagination for 'simple meal with simple implements.' The Agape or Christian Love Feast (a part of Christian life mainly found now in the East) was according to murals in the catacombs celebrated in as fine a fashion as the mainly poorer or middle class Christians could manage.

Roman traditional religion was not congregational. I cannot see how you can connect that to the Mass, except in some really vague manner.

I would also say that your 'Anglicans are Catholics' contention is a hook on which to hang a ragged old coat of anti-Catholic aspersions. You might consider Communion to be 'angels on a pinhead' but that is my Faith. You should not mock it. A very large portion of Earth's population regards the Successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome as their spiritual leader. Anglicanism is in the process of losing any semblance to anything other than a small Western liberal minority church as African and other bishops of the developing world tire of ultra-liberal synodal politics. If I was at the level of mockery I would remind you that Henry VIII founded your Church as he could not get an annulment, and then even Anne Boleyn got the chop. St Peter, whose remains are under the High Altar of the basilica of St Peter, is for me a better first leader.

What Missals do people who hear the Mass of Ages use?

What of the Dialogue Mass? Views?