Posted on 01/13/2010 10:43:08 AM PST by NYer
Monsignor Guido Marini, Benedict XVI’s master of ceremonies, this week strongly underlined the Pope’s recommendation that when Mass is celebrated facing westwards, the priest should place a crucifix at the centre of the altar. This was to make clear that the celebrant was not “facing the people”, but facing Christ.
The Holy Father could hardly have made himself clearer on this point. So why do the Bishops of England and Wales allow the vast majority of their priests to ignore his wishes? Why do the bishops themselves routinely ignore the recommendation?
Perhaps someone will ask the bishops when they make their ad limina visit to Rome at the end of this month. One hopes that Archbishop Vincent Nichols, president of the Bishops’ Conference, will be able to reply that the bishops have drawn up plans to introduce this reform universally – and also to make it easier for the faithful to receive communion kneeling and on the tongue, which is the preference of the Pope. (At the moment, too many parish priests treat anyone wishing to receive the Sacrament in this way as an oddball, rather than a Catholic following the example of the Holy Father.)
Below are some extracts from Mgr Marini’s address to the Year for Priests Clergy Conference in Rome, organised by the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Hat-tip to that incomparable resource, The New Liturgical Movement website.
Here is Mgr Marini on the question of orientation. Note that he, like the Pope, supports eastward-facing celebration where it is appropriate:
Without recourse to a detailed historical analysis of the development of Christian art, we would like to reaffirm that prayer facing east, more specifically, facing the Lord, is a characteristic expression of the authentic spirit of the liturgy.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Until 40 years ago, orientation in Christian worship was always a consideration. Just as it is for the Jews.
Posture helps everyone remember that the Mass isn’t all about us. True, the Mass is a gathering of God’s people, who’s present in their midst. It is a sacred meal. And it is preeminently the public act by which the Church recalls her faith and proclaims it to the world. But beyond any of these things, the Mass is a sacrifice, the unique sacrifice of Calvary made present on the altar, offered for the forgiveness of sin and the healing of the world. “Sacrifice” requires the presence of an offering, of one who receives the offering, and one who does the offering. At Mass, the offering is Jesus Himself, fully and really present in the Blessed Sacrament. The One Who receives the offering is God the Father. And the one who does the offering? That’s the priest of course, but acting “in persona Christi capitis” – in the person of Christ, the head of the Church.
The ordained priest exercises his priesthood in the name of Jesus the true High Priest, so his identity and personality are relatively unimportant. His talents and accomplishments are unimportant. Thanks to the grace of his ordination, even his sinful human nature is unimportant. With his back to the people, his identity is submerged in that of Jesus. The message of what the Mass is all about is reinforced by directing attention to the sacrifice itself and the true High Priest, and away from the personality of the ordained priest.
The decision to turn the altars around so that priests would face the people was never ordered or even contemplated by Vatican II. This change obscured the Mass’s focus on the sacramental dimension — the divine Victim’s atoning sacrifice and of the Mass. Replacing it was a liturgy with a more evangelical spin, with far more emphasis given to proclaimed scripture and preaching and even ad libs improvised by the celebrant. While all of the critical elements of the Mass are still there, they are sometimes overshadowed by the over-emphasis of alien elements.
All of the world’s great monotheist religions stress orientation in worship. It’s well-known that Muslims face Mecca when they pray; their Mosques are designed with this in mind. Jews at prayer traditionally face Jerusalem because it held the Temple that contained the Ark of the Covenant. Jews living in Jerusalem today face the Temple Mount, for the same reason.
From a very early age, Christian worship also has emphasized liturgical orientation. While faithful Jews at prayer look to Jerusalem as a sign of their messianic hope, Christian churches are traditionally aligned east, the direction of the rising sun, as a reminder of the Resurrection. The alignment reinforces the significance Christianity attaches to Sunday – the day of the Resurrection, but also the eighth day, the first day of the new week, a new and redeemed creation, reminding us that in the risen Christ all things are made new again.
The risen Lord’s prophetic message to the apostles was that He would be going before them, into Galilee where they would see him. Whether true east or “liturgical” east, the practice of everyone’s facing the same direction also effectively makes the point that at Mass the priest at the head of the people is symbolically preceding them, as Christ said of himself to the apostles. Finally, the common alignment symbolizes a hope shared by Jews and Christians for the coming of the Messiah. At the end of the world the Jewish hope will at last be fulfilled, as Christ returns as he promised, this time in unmistakable majesty. When we participate in the the “ad orientem” posture, we’re maintaining continuity with the immemorial practice of the Church, reminding us that for Catholics communion is about all members of the Church looking to Christ as our head in all times and places, not just those who’re with us here and now.
Some Catholics have come to feel uncomfortable with the ad orientem posture. To some it feels unfriendly (but to emphasize friendliness at the expense sacramental symbolism is a poor trade that reduces the Mass to a “meet ‘n’ greet” social event). To some it feels like rejection (it’s really inclusion, since by a common posture the priest and people are doing something together, participating more perfectly in the sacrifice). To some it feels as if the people are irrelevant to the Mass (but even in the Extraordinary Form, the priest always turns to the people when his words are addressed to them. The rest of the time he like us is turned towards God). They can’t see the celebrant’s face but this is a good thing since it removes a source of distraction for us, not to mention the distraction for the priest of hundreds of eyes watching him.
Even though most Catholics no longer know why churches are traditionally “oriented” – aligned towards the east – it doesn’t change the underlying principles: that the priest is there above all to make newly-present and to offer in sacrifice the Lord who offered himself for our sins. The priest is not there merely to remind the people about Jesus’s sacrifice. Not just to preside at a meal. Not just to lead the people in prayer. Certainly not just to offer his personality or creativity as inspirations to worship or to gratify his ego. The return to “ad orientem” posture, whether in the older Extraordinary Form of the Mass or the Ordinary Form that’s so much more common, promotes the core principles of what the Mass is all about by removing distractions while allowing the Mass to speak for itself.
LOL!
Now there’s a epic graphic! Dat’s da bomb!
That’s not what it’s saying. It’s saying if you don’t you need a crucifix on the altar so that you’re still confecting the Eucharist while facing the Imago Dei.
In the 70’s a French bishop (or was he a priest) decided he knew better than the pope and ordained bishops himself despite repeated orders from the pope not to do so.
The controversy centered around the mass and changes regarding Vatican II.
But the acutual excommunication was due to the invalid ordinations.
They call themselves SSPX (Society of St. Pius X)
Benedict XVI has gone out of his way to bring them back into the fold , but these folks consider themselves to be “more catholic than the pope.”
netmilsmom:
Thanks. I still check the threads every day and every now and then I will post, jut don’t get involved in the back and forth with the “world is flat types” or the “Predestined” on the site.
A thread like this, which is more discussion oriented is ok.
A good book on the entire idea of “ad orientem” posture in Liturgy and the placement of “Icons/Sacramentals/Sacred Images [i.e. Crucifixes]” is discussed in detail and with great theological reflection in Pope Benedict’s book “THe Spirit of the Liturgy”.
I highly recommend it to fellow Catholics here.
pax et bonum
I don’t get it. Does someone actually think Christ cares where & which way a manmade statue is positioned? or which way the faithful are oriented by compass?
I’d be much more concerned that the tradition risks violating the 2nd Commandment.
See, there’s your problem. You need to respect tradition. Tradition is the faith of our fathers. When you disrespect tradition you disrespect your own ancestors.
Traditions developed for what people at the time and over the years felt was very good reasons. As time goes on and traditions remain, the host of people that sustained them grows. When you destroy a tradition, you throw away a gift that those from earlier times wished to give to you. Moreover, you steal the gift from our children and future generations out of your own selfish vanity. Who are you to change the Mass? By what right do YOU pronounce what is better and what is worse?
Some things need to be changed. Change should be introduced slowly and after much due deliberation. The chance for unintended consequences is so great, and the trauma of change on people so strong, that it must be done very carefully. Would that this generation would remember that. Liberals want to change things out of hand, just because something seems better or worse at a given moment. They are iconoclasts.
Conservatives should question everything, and conserve the good. That is the only way we make progress as a people. Primitive man who could not record knowledge did not advance. Only by passing on wisdom do we have a chance.
This is not entirely focused on you, but you got me started.
So the Catholic church is encouraging and condoning it’s good Catholic boy to live in sin with his illegitimate room mate...”
It cracks me up when folks are so anti-Catholic that they jump the gun and post stuff that completely ignores what has been posted in the thread. I reckon such folks must think that any chance to make the Church look bad is too valuable to pass up, even if it makes them seem like fools.
“Man, what a religion...”
I hope such posts continue, for the sake of the lurkers.
Freegards
I am CTrent1564 and I approve this ad.
I’m going to check that out!
ctdonath2:
I understand your concern, but modern man has lost an undersanding of Sacred Mystery and is much more into the “cult of personality”, i.e. In Protestant circles how does the preacher speak, talk, etc, the choir, on being entertained or focused on “Me”.
IN Catholic Liturgy, the posture of facing towards the East is a reminder that from the Rome and the West, it is in the East that the “Word was made Flesh” and that was where he lived and taught, died and rose and ascended into Heaven. So, the focus in that direction tells us that Christ really did become incarnate in a partiuclar place and time in human history. Also, the placement of the Sacred Icon like a Crucifix in the center of the CHurch is a visible reminder that we are not there to look at the Priest, even though he made be a great homilist/preacher/Chanter of the Gospel, etc, and we are not there to look at each other or look at the choir.
No, the placement of the Crucifix in the center is a reminder that we are there to greet/face/meet Christ who comes to meet us in both Sacred Scripture and Sacrement [Eucharist].
In closing, humans are persons with both a spirit and body and thus the posture in Liturgy and the placement of visible sacred icons and statues, etc are designed to help each of us focus less on both me and we and focus directly on the Lord himself. Liturgy means not doing as each of us please, no it means all of us worshiping the Lord in way that reflects the Sacred Mysteries and saving actions of God in the Bible and thus allows to worship him with our entire person.
Except for Protestant human traditions.
So I guess you will argue with St. Paul and his statement “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” II Thessalonians 2:15 and “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” II Thessalonians 3:6
Since you, yourself, aren’t in the Bible, how can you take what you think seriously?
BFL
What you seem to have missed is that the human traditions promoted in the Romish church are in no way related to the Christian traditions preached by Paul, Peter, and John.
It is grossly illogical to believe that they would have preached ‘traditions’ that are so in opposition to their written letters. (and to the recorded words of the Lord himself)
I.e. idolatry.
>>Except for Protestant human traditions.<<
I disagree. My best friend wrote a book: “and no religion too - thoughts on the spectator church”. He and I would sit on the porch and discuss our church(s) and how they compared to the early church paradigm. I think those discussions are at least part of the background for the book. BTS, he’s here: http://edgoble.com/
My old assembly of God church had an american flag and a powder blue “Christian flag” that people would “pledge allegiance” to. I did neither in the church. I’m sure those that came up with that Christian flag had good intentions, but it offended me that someone would come up with such a lame tradition. I complained to the pastor that I thought it was inapropriate. Eventually I left and went to a “Christian” church that also had that flag. I complained there and apparently made a better case, becouse it just sort of dissapeared.
Man made religion seems to be unable to avoid piling stuff on, in the spirit of making it “better”. I try to avoid it at all costs and constantly review what I am doing to see if I am also “piling on” what the Bible says about how one should worship.
Traditions of men, no matter who the “men” are, do not seem to get a lot of respect from Jesus. Even if they are created “in his name”. And yes, that goes for protestants. The only reason they don’t have as many is that they have not been around as long.
Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If not, then you have no idea whether or not the Catholic “traditions” are the same as St. Paul’s “traditions.”
But just for starters, St. Paul’s words in I Corinthians 11 are much more “Catholic” than “Protestant:” “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,...Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord....For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” verses 23, 27, 29 St. Paul clearly says that Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of the Lord. This is a “Catholic” teaching and not “Protestant.” Don’t try to argue with me on this one because I was brought up Presbyterian and I know what the Presbyterian church (doesn’t) teach on these verses. They are completely ignored, as if they don’t exist.
>>So I guess you will argue with St. Paul and his statement “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” II Thessalonians 2:15 and “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” II Thessalonians 3:6
Since you, yourself, aren’t in the Bible, how can you take what you think seriously?<<
I am discussing “traditions of men” not those traditions we are taught in the Bible. e.g. I am a strong believer in participating in Communion OFTEN.
What I think is based on those teachings. And it is NOT infallible. No church or church leader is, frankly. That is why I have yet to find a church with which I completely agree on EVERYthing. But that is ok. It’s the “bullet” doctrines that matter. It’s why I am not a Jehova’s Witness. But if the only church near me was Catholic, I might go there, even though I strongly disagree with the “saints” thing, the “Mary” thing, the “eucharist” thing, and a few other “things”. They teach the core Christian doctrines.
At least I “think” they do. ;)
I know how you think because I used to think that way myself. You think "religion" is a plot of "the Devil" to lead man to think he can please G-d when it is impossible to do so, that what G-d wants is for man to be passively "saved" by accepting the vicarious damnation of a divine scapegoat. And you think that this makes you "humble" while everyone who disagrees with you is billowing with pride, thinking that their "good works" is pleasing to G-d.
Did you know that your Protestant "Bible alone, faith alone" beliefs have no roots whatsoever in the chr*stian past? I have news for you, the Catholics didn't make all that stuff up. Go to any truly ancient church, churches that were never under Constantine at all (the Armenian, the Nestorian, the Indian, the Ethiopian) and you will find that all the ancient, authentic versions of chr*stianity (as opposed to all those "true new testament churches" American evangelicals think they find in the "new testament" based on their own unexamined assumptions) are "works" religions who do all those awful things you don't find in the "new testament." Bible only, faith only Protestantism has absolutely no roots in the chr*stian past at all. It was made out of whole cloth in recent centuries. Too bad that the "new testament" is so unclear that no chr*stian anywhere from ancient Britain to ancient India ever read it the way American evangelicals do. And of course they all "went to hell" because they were "too proud" to accept antinomian loophole "salvation."
Then of course are all the rituals and ceremonies and commandments that even you admit that G-d gave to Israel in the "old testament." But according to you He only did that to teach them that no one's perfect (as if anyone ever believed that to begin with) and He never meant them to actually think there was any zekhut involved in doing what He said to do. Funny how the people who had this "preparatory lesson" for antinomian loophole salvation never got it and the only people who did never even existed for seventeen hundred years or so.
I spend most of my time on this forum defending Fundamentalist Protestants, and I don't regret it. I don't share their chr*stian beliefs, but I admire them for sticking up for the Truth of the Hebrew Bible when everyone else has sold out. I even appreciate that their antinomianism (and yours, for that matter) is blessedly consistent compared to the ancient churches who rail against the "works" of the "old testament" only to replace them with "works" of their own. But every so often someone like you comes along who is so small-minded and so blind to historical reality that it actually helps me understand why so many people despise Fundamentalist Protestants. G-d forgive me for saying this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.