www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Anyone familiar with "Adoremus?"

I am blessed to attend the New Mass where it is done quite reverently. I'm not saying things are perfect but I do believe that it fulfills some of the spirit of what the Bishops of Vatican II were looking for. I do not think it is in the Latin Church's best interest to go back to the Tridentine Mass. Leave it open as an option for those who prefer it. But, I think a "reform of the renewal" is in order (which I believe is one of the goals of Adoremus). I would agree with Anastasios with most of his recommendations "if I were pope..." I do think, however, that moving the altar away from the back wall was done mainly to allow for celebrating "facing the people." Restoring the traditional "facing East" and bringing the Tabernacle back into the main axis of the Church (instead of in side chapels) are two things that should occur in the new "reform," IMHO. An interesting article on "re-orientating the liturgy" can be found at:

http://www.liturgy.ie/picpage.html

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Ok, fine with me. I was referring to it as the Tridentine Liturgy, and Joe told me to call it Pian. Now you say "Gregorian." Gee wiz, what is it??

anastasios

Dear all,

As far as EWTN priests not facing east (ad orientum) this is not of their own choosing. I remember when they did face east and their bishop put a stop to it by decreeing that any televised Mass in his diocese MUST have the priest facing the people. If you follow things at EWTN, Mother Angelica built a beautiful new church specifically designed for liturgy facing east. After the bishop's decree, you no longer see Mass from there, but from the old chapel they used before the church was bulit. You can only see the church as a setting for various devotions - Adoration of the Blessed sacrament, etc.

It will be interesting to see what will happen if the Eastern Catholic priests who have a program on that network [a very informative show IMO] get their wish and have major feastday liturgies broadcast - will the "no backs to the people" rule still apply even for Byzantine worship?

As far as the thinking of scholars on this topic, people like Msgr. Klaus Gamber & Cardinal Ratzinger have called for a switch back to the more ancient position of ad orientum (facing East) than the inovation of pro populum (toward the people). The latter was really a political agenda stance based on the unsubstantial assumption that in the early house churches the eucharist was a dinner party where the presider, like any good host, faced his guests. Sounds reasonable, however there is NOT A SHRED of evidence that this ever happened. However it is continuously cited by liturgists as the reason for the "reform" of the current Mass.

A Roman Bishop's order would have no effect on a televised Byzantine Liturgy on EWTN. (This despite our friend Bob's assertion that we are "just a part of the RCC.") In fact, it would show that the traditional way to celebrate Liturgy is not something that goes against the Magisterium (or Vatican II for that matter).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

1) I would like to know how a Roman bishop can "order" those folks to celebrate Mass with their backs towards God when I only remember the Vatican documents suggesting that a free-standing altar *might* allow for the priest to face east. No where was it said it was mandatory, or was it?

2) Why did said bishop issue said edict when a year before he was on EWTN doing an ordination for those folks facing east? Did he get flack from other bishops?

3) Do the priests in that beautiful church get to face God instead of the people when it is not telivised?

4) If facing East is the way to go, why does JP II face the people, then? Maybe he doesn't agree with us and Cardinal Ratzingy? Or he doesn't want more confusion? I'd ask him but I doubt the letter would get to him!

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

To answer your questions to the best of my knowledge:

1) For more information on this subject, follow the links below:

http://www.adoremus.org/1199-Foley.html

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/111999/111999g.htm


2) Some say he was influenced by other bishops to "crack down" on Mother Angelica. If you recall she had generated some controversy in her criticism of the cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles.

3) AFAIK the Mass is celebrated facing East in the new shrine church - I think the altar is set up so one cannot do otherwise. At least that how it looks on TV.

4) The Pope does face East in his private chapel in the papal apts. You have to remember that the Holy Father is such a generous and well-loved shepherd that people WANT to see him - and to "perform" [for lack of a better word] rituals for him. I remember going to a papal Mass here in the US that had some absolutely dreadful liturgical dancing. It was not very worthy of worship. The only thing that I could think of to console me was the idea that the Pope is like a grandfather, and the "kids" like to put a show on for him to show them how much they love him and to demonstrate what talents they have. I realize that this probably plays into the hands of those who accuse Catholics of papal idolatry. But I think that the Holy Father is very gracious in accepting these things, even though they probably make him uncomfortable.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Laus Tibi,

Actually Tridentine or Pian are quite correct. The Roman Rite underwent many transformations. In Rome itself, the ancient Roman Liturgy gave way to the Leonine reform, which in turn gave way to the Gelasian reform, which in turn gave way to the Gregorian reform. The pure Gregorian was eventually supplanted by a Gelasian/Gregorian synthesis with Gallican and Gothic additions which was introduced to Rome from the Ottonian Germanic kingdom.

Outside Rome various rites and usages were in place. Trent and St. Pius V unified and codified the Roman usage and demanded its observance and virtually exterminated the local rites every where but the Ambrosian in Milan, the Bragan in Braga, and the Mozarabic in Toledo and some older Roman variants used by some of the religous orders.

This is not to suggets that the Gregorian reform has nothing to do with the Tridentine reform or even the Pauline reform. However, to say the Roman Rite as reformed and codified by Trent is exactly the same as the Gregorain reform is incorrect and historically inaccurate. The Roman Rite saw much transformation in the years betweeen St. Gregory the Great and St. Pius V. Some Latin Traditionalists, however, seem to turn a blind eye to historical fact and talk themselves into believing the Tridentine and Gregorian reforms are the same in order to make the Tridentine reform look more ancient and jusitfy their demands to return to the Missal of St. Pius V. This is both wrong and unnecessary. Those who are attached to the Tridentine reform should be able to use it, but there is no need to invent reasons to justify it in my opinion.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Gee whizz, I thought this was the Byzantine Forum???? I must have stumbled into the Evils of the Contemporary Roman Rite Forum by mistake????

LOL

Seems like that stumble is easy sometimes. I've had that same experience here from time to time Don!

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

Dear Don,

We Ukrainian Catholics have to deal with our own evils . . .

Merry Christmas, if you celebrate it today, Brother Don!

If not, "Christ is Baptized! In the Jordan!"

Alex

I am unclear as to this strong feeling about eastward stance.

In my Byzantine parish, if the priest actual faced east, I would be looking at his profile during Liturgy. When we have three priests concelbrating with him, they surround the altar on all four sides, clearly evocative of the Latin principle of the altar as the center of worship, trumping eastward stance. I have never know (but please educate me if others have different experiences) in a Byzantine concelebration, the principle of priestly eastward direction being followed in preference over the principle of the

Several writers have rightly pointed out that the Counciliar reforms did not absolutely mandate facing the people in the Roman Rite. Part of this is due to the fact the the contrary practice was not mandated before the Council, despite popular mythology. Prior to the Council, the Roman liturigical rule simply had the priest stand as the church was built. Nothing prohibited facing the people. After WWII when many French and Belgian churches were destroyed by the war, new ones were built with freestanding altars and the current Latin practice was followed without any change in rubrics.

K.

Alex,

Thanks my friend! Yes, we celebrated Epiphany this weekend and it was my first experience to see the Blessing of Waters. I had read the ritual some time ago, but this was the first time to actually see it done. My new family has some pretty AWE-FILLED rites! :-)

Don

Kurt,

You reminded me of a piece of learning that I cannot document currently but did come by honestly!

I learned that the practice of genuflecting reflects the traditional Latin respect for the altar of sacrifice as the center of worship. Even in Churches in which the Eucharist is not reserved in the place of worship, the custom is to genuflect. At least that was what I learned in my training.

Do you or does another reader or poster know of a source that documents this attitude and the appropriateness of the practice?

Thanks for any information that you can share.

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

Kurt,

What you say is actually true; my church for instance does not actually face east (wish it did though).

Facing east of course is theologically meaningful because Christ is the Sun of Justice, and the Sun rises in the East. Early Christians prayed facing east to meet the rising sun. Once in India, I actually climbed a big rock at 6 am and prayed matins facing east as the sun rose. Very moving experience.

What I guess is important in my mind is that all parties face the same direction, as the bishop, who is Christ's earthly icon, presents the sacrifice to the father. We the faithful, who by our gathering together form the Body of Christ, follow along with the bishop/priest into eternal life.

For practical purposes, I hate attending Roman liturgies where the priest faces towards the people. It is horribly distracting to me. It also seems to suggest that we are turning the celebration into some sort of community affair, facing one another. Totally unnecessary, as by our gathering together we realize the Church.

Please cite examples for these post WWII Belgian priests. I am not denying what you say is true, I just have never seen this and would like to be able to assimilate all the pertinent evidence.

It seems that since the pre-1970 RC Church and all Eastern Churches have the priest facing the same direction as the people, that this is a universal custom, as all liturgies involve a preliminary service of the word followed by a service of the eucharist.

I pray for a restoration of facing east or at least all facing the same direction, to be restored for our Latin bretheren.

anastasios

anastasios,

Thank you for your post. If I am reading you correctly, you are with great scholarship making the case for facing east as a legitimate Christian liturgical practice and expressing your personal preference for it. Obviously, no fault in that.

As you note, this is a a practice that is often already modified as in your church and mine where we pretend south is east.

I think it is fair for you to say it is distracting to you. But if that is a valid concern, then the Latin Church must decide what is least distracting to its members; which I believe they have determined the contrary (and as we would expect from them to us, that is their judgement to make).

I do have to disagree with "It also seems to suggest that we are turning the celebration into some sort of community affair". The Liturgy IS some sort of community affair, which I think you acknowledge by noting "by our gathering together we realize the Church". We are gathering together rather than marching in military formation, right?

Again, we Easterns while rightfully placing value on eastward direction are not rigid about, and while it is commonin practice, it is secondary in theory, shown not only in the fact our churches are build facing a variety of direction, but that in concelebration, the priests gather around the altar rather than line up facing east (evn if east is south, not to sound Orwellian).

K.

If you read some of the 1950's issues of what is now "Worship" magazine, you will see examples of the French & Belgian churches.