In response to the post Facing the Crucifix, Gem of the Ocean said:H'mmm...so the pope wants me to look at the cross on the altar, rather than the REAL PRESENCE in his own hands?I think that it is worth explaining a little more about the question because obviously it would be wrong for the priest to look at the crucifix in preference to the consecrated host. This is a good example of how the rubrics of the old rite can help us to celebrate the new rite better.
In the old rite, the priest learns to look up at the crucifix and then down at the host during the offertory prayer for the bread (Suscipe sancte Pater). Thus his attention is drawn to God, to whom he offers the sacrifice, and to the host which is offered. At the same time, he is reminded to offer himself. Offering the chalice, (Offerimus tibi Domine) he looks only at the crucifix, asking God's clemency for our salvation and that of the whole world.
When "looking up to heaven" in the Canon in union with Christ (elevatis oculis in caelum), the crucifix serves as a focal point if it is suitably elevated. The altars in St Peter's are a good example of construction that is ideal for the Mass. Then he looks at the host intently as it is consecrated. At the elevation of the host and chalice, the priest can look both at the body and blood of Christ now truly present, and at the crucifix which reminds him of the sacrifice Christ offered of his own body and blood, the sacrifice that is made present here and now. Thereafter, he does not look up to the crucifix again until the blessing (when the elements have been consumed). Rather, he looks at the host when saying the Memento of the Dead, the Pater Noster, and the preparatory prayers for Communion.
Unless you take the "wearing your alb back to front" view of the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, there is no reason why a priest could not observe all of these traditional customs when saying the new Mass. The examples that I have given do not constitute an exhaustive list - priests could consult J B O'Connell's "The Celebration of Mass" for more details.
The crucifix needs to be a reasonably tall one and the corpus should face the priest. There is some debate about this on the grounds that it might "exclude" the people. (It would be a good idea to read Fr Z's post on this before commenting on this particular issue.) On following this debate, it becomes obvious, as Cardinal Ratzinger hinted in "The Spirit of the Liturgy" that the only sensible solution is for us all to face eastward together.
The authors of spiritual books for priests also used to emphasise the priest's custody of the eyes. He was not to look beyond the altar rails when saying the Orate Fratres, for example. This might sound odd to modern ears until you consider the effect of the constant "eye contact" that seems to be de rigeur in some celebrations of the new Mass. The priest's personality can dominate the whole celebration of the Mass with unfortunate consequences for the laity who are distracted from the action of God which takes place, and for the priest who can be tempted to pride.
31 comments:
Isn't it true that facing East is not the same thing as facing the altar or facing the consecrated Host?
For while (as you say, Father) the priest's gaze is directed in certain specific ways during the consecration rite, the faithful are traditionally is facing East, not the altar as such, during the prayers. For example, I am usually very near the North sacristy door in our parish church (because the singers stand there, and I am a singer). During the consecration I am kneeling and facing East: the priest and the (freestanding) altar are on my right and I can only see them by turning my head.
AM
Yes, the points I was making relate specifically to the priest. The general "Turning Towards the Lord" has an importance of its own throughout the Mass both for the priest and for the congregation.
Yes it's nice to know the Priest isn't 'looking at you'..like what you're wearing, who you're sitting with etc...& nice to know we're not looking at the Priests facial expressions as he turns to face the Altar. That must be awful to have that 'chatty' interaction, actor type, personality thing..it's been so long since i've been to one of those masses..i forget they still exist..
Oh, HECK on all facing the same way for the NO. I want to see what's going on. Phooey on Cardinal Ratzinger. He always has a front row seat, so to speak. Well enough for all those in the sanctuary. Priest facing the people is the BEST thing I like about the NO. The "worms" can actually see what the heck is going on. Jesus didn't consecrate the bread and wine at a sideboard. I wouldn't care if most of the NO [the unchanging parts] was in Latin when it comes to it, personally. But I do want to see what the priest is doing.
FWIW, The rather thinnish cross on the papal altar depicted isn't too much of a distraction. I was just a little taken aback that he said it should be the FOCUS. Perhaps YOU should be the one putting out statements rather than him. :-D
As far as a priest being worried about being a focus of attention himself - I think you are right on the mark as far as "custody of the eyes." Anyone who's been in a play would know how to do this sort of focus. You look at only the things you SHOULD be looking at. Given that most churches have a central nave, and no one sits there, you shouldn't be conscious of any given person in the congregation at the offertory or the consecration. If you are looking where you are supposed to be looking, Quasimodo could be in your congregation and you wouldn't notice. Well, maybe during the sermon, but not otherwise! :-D
Elsewhere I think you hit the mark on a via media for tone of voice. Do English churches NOT generally have microphones? Ours do. Save perhaps smallish chapels. If a priest merely speaks in a normal volume voice the mic picks him up nicely. At the consecration, I think a nice leisurely pace, with time for the prayers to sink in works best. If the priest just says the consecration and pays attention to the punctuation marks in the Missal he should do fine. My own priest is Father consistency. What he says in the low tone can only be heard by the servers or himself. For instance the "Lord wash away my inequities and cleanse me from my sins" and the Secret. The rest is quite audible but not LOUD. No "look at me, look at me" delivery. VERY consistent. Gestures are the same, every time. If priests would just do what it says in the Missal they'd be okay.
Jesus didn't consecrate the bread and wine at a sideboard.
He didn't consecrate it "facing the people" either.
As far as the congregation is concerned, if the priest faces East, everyone sees the same. If he is facing the people you want to "see what is going on" you have to sit at the front. If you are at the back, you are left out. Not a problem with Eastward-facing.
We do have microphones in England - often those horrible throat things that pick up every cough, sneeze etc. I refuse to wear one when saying the Canon and put it on the altar. Much of the "hearing every word" stuff comes from the age of microphones. In days gone by, nobody would have heard anything whether the priest was saying things quietly or not. Hence Luther's demand for the priest to shout the canon. And hence the absurdity of "signing" the Mass for deaf people.
I suggested to our diocesan disability co-ordinator once that the old Mass was more inclusive for deaf people because they were not disadvantaged compared to others in the congregation. I don't think she had heard that line of argument before :-)
The "worms" can actually see what the heck is going on.
I don't get this. You can't see what's going on, wherever you are. You can't see it with a microscope. It's invisible. The accidents are unchanged. We adore with the eyes of faith at the elevation. Apart from that - what is there to see?
Martin Mosebach's essay on "revelation through veiling" is very much to the point here. In fact, as far as "seeing" is concerned, less is more (cf Adoro te devote).
Gemns of the ocean seems to want to see what the priest is doing. THe problem is with the Novus Ordo he is not doing very much!!! The liturgical gurus of the day decided to turn the priest round so that the laity 'could see whathe was doing' and then took precisely whathe was doing away by removing all the signs of the cross etc in the canon. If the Traditonal Rite was celebrated versus populum then the laity could in fact see what the priest was doing.
Ever since Mass "facing the people" was introduced, I have wondered where the priest is supposed to direct his gaze when "looking up to heaven".
Facing ad orientem, when he raises
his eyes, his gaze rests on the
crucifix above the altar.
The crucifix is there as a point of reference. His eyes can't avoid it. It is directly in his line of sight when he looks up.
Versus populum, at an altar without a tall crucifix, when he raises his eyes, he sees not the heavens above, but the ceiling of the nave, the west wall of the church, the organ loft, the choir, electric light fittings, etc. None of these things is the functional equivalent of the crucifix.
There is nothing to focus on.
A large crucifix of traditional design placed somewhere behind the priest is all very well for the congregation, but the priest can't see it, or raise his eyes to it.
A great rood hanging from the ceiling is all very well in Westminster Cathedral.
But even when versus populum, the priest would have to lean over backwards in an attempt to glimpse it.
Therefore, there seems to be no alternative to a tall crucifix on the altar.
There now is a point of reference on which the priest's gaze may rest when he looks heavenwards.
The crucifix so placed could be said to come between the priest and people - to "exclude" them, as it were.
While this ("now I can't see what he's doing") argument is not without merit, it can only pertain to the congregation.
This argument could be used by extension against celebrating ad orientem, the rood screen and (in eastern liturgies) the iconostasis.
The congregation cannot see, and feel excluded from, the sacred action.
Well, if so minded, they can feel "excluded" by communion rails.
To take this argument to its logical conclusion, you would have to abolish any distinction between sanctuary and nave, and to be "inclusive" you would (presumably) arrange the seating for the people in a circular fashion around the altar.
(This, of course, is what has happened in many new church buildings, and in the "re-ordering" of old buildings.)
The result is a complete loss of any sense of the sacred.
I think the idea is to venture no further down that road.
Finally, I think Karen's comment suggests the desirability in some churches of turning the lighting down in the nave, so that the priest is not distracted by the sight of the congregation. (I expect he can't help looking at them a bit.)
Right on Fr! Yikes..our Priest visitor on the day of your visit signs for the deaf...i think it's ludicrous..& i have a hearing impaired child..Karen we have the Priest face occasionally at a school Mass..you naturally see frs face..hey has he a tan? he looks a bit 'stressed' to me (well he would be naturally not liking facing the kids!)..but so wonderful the Priest facing the Lord..everyday in our Parish & probably in Fr Tims. BTW i hear Fr Tim's Parish is 'thriving' from 'a little bird'..so obviously that's what people want..we have the beautiful Crucifix above the tabernacle..my boys explained how at Benediction/adoration the crucifix is lowered & the Monstrance elevated..they get to see all the things us women take for granted. Isn't it wonderful that there are still 'jobs for the boys!'
Gem of the Ocean I really can't agree with your readiness to dismiss Ratzinger. There are wonderful depths to what he is saying - both theological and historical. It's not just a matter of personal preference that can be summarily cast aside as your comment suggests. It saddens me a little to think you would do so as there are spiritual graces to be found in exploring the true interelationship of liturgy with sacramental theology. Not least one can adapt one's own interior participation in each Mass when understanding is formed ever deeper in line with the tradition of The Church. Pope Benedict is not a lone voice e.g. Boyer points out how misguided are some commonly held assumptions on these matters, I quote... "The idea that celebration versus populum was the original form, indeed the way the Last Supper itself was celebrated, rests purely and simply on a mistaken idea of what a banquet, Christian or even non-Christian, was like in antiquity. In the earliest days of Christianity the head of table never took his place facing the other participants. Everyone sat or lay on the convex side of an S-shaped or horseshoe-shaped table. Nowhere in Christian antiquity could anyone have come up with the idea that the man presiding at the meal had to take his place versus populum. The communal character of a meal was emphasized by precisely the opposite arrangement, namely, by the fact that everyone at the meal found himself on the same side of the table." (quote courtesy of adoremus.org)
Time to repost Fr. Dennis Kolinski's most excellent Ascension Thursday homily on ad orientem.
Father has his back to no one.
Father isn't ignoring us.
Father isn't being mean.
Father isn't trying to exclude us.
He is leading us towards the East and the New Jerusalem and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Who WILL come back from the East.
You can look it up.
Karen "Jesus didn't consecrate the bread and wine at a sideboard."
Fr. Tim: "He didn't consecrate it "facing the people" either."
I'm not so sure about that Father. Unless the Jews had a habit of sitting on only one side of the table! BTW, who cooked the Last Supper, and where the heck were Mary Magdalen and The Blessed Mother? From all I know about the Jews is at a Passover Meal (to go by the synoptics) everyone gathers and eats together. "mom, the guys and I are going to have a special Supper, you're not invited. Do you and Mary Magdalene mind eating at the Katzenjammer's house tonight?" [Mary: I changed your diapers, I kept the Cohen boy from beating you senseless that one time... and for this I have to eat at the Katzenzammer's house on Passover? Oy!]
Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if a few more people were in the room that night. The gospels didn't HAVE to mention them, nor is it necessary give a blow by blow of what the place settings were. I always assumed Leonardo told the guys to all sit on one side to get them in, or told the ladies to clear out so he could paint the apostles with Jesus. Somebody cooked the meal and cleared up afterwards. Unless it was catered by Moskewitz and Son. [Do not by any stretch of the imagination think I'm using this as an argument for women priests. I'm not. But I do muse about this stuff.]
"As far as the congregation is concerned, if the priest faces East, everyone sees the same. If he is facing the people you want to "see what is going on" you have to sit at the front. If you are at the back, you are left out. Not a problem with Eastward-facing.
Then NO ONE sees diddly except the priest and the servers. And in a lot of churches you CAN see "what's going on." Unless you're little and your mom insists on sitting in the back, then what you see are overcoats and the backs of people. I'm assuming your sanctuary is at least slightly raised up like 99% are?
"We do have microphones in England - often those horrible throat things that pick up every cough, sneeze etc. I refuse to wear one when saying the Canon and put it on the altar. Much of the "hearing every word" stuff comes from the age of microphones. In days gone by, nobody would have heard anything whether the priest was saying things quietly or not. Hence Luther's demand for the priest to shout the canon. And hence the absurdity of "signing" the Mass for deaf people."
I agree, I don't like the body mic - We have a small mic on the altar that pics up only what needs to be picked up. And a mic. at the place where the readings and sermons are done. And Luther was an idiot. As for the Mass being said quietly before the age of the mic - hard to say how loud the priest spoke. It's amazing how far a well trained voice, even one in normal tones will carry -- think of those Greek Ampitheatres. My guess is the people close by could hear - but to go by the necessity of the bell ringing so that Tom, Dick, and Harry could stop eyeing the girls the people at the back couldn't hear squat. Not that most of them knew Latin anyway. The educated did, but that was a minority. They priest may as well have said Mass in Bantu, for all a lot of them understood.
"I suggested to our diocesan disability co-ordinator once that the old Mass was more inclusive for deaf people because they were not disadvantaged compared to others in the congregation. I don't think she had heard that line of argument before :-)"
:-D [equal opportunity misunderstanding.]
Yeah, but if you were deaf, I wonder if you'd say that. At least a lot of the deaf CAN lip read, if sitting close -- they'd really be at a disadvantage in an ad orientam Mass.
Cheers.
Karen
Taking up your "wearing your alb back to front" point; the OR rubrics instruct the priest to consume the Host and the Precious Blood 'reverently'. What could be more reverent than the priest making a Sign of the Cross with the Host, and then with the Chalice, immediately before before consuming?
I hope the diocesan disability co-ordinator had a sense of humour! But the point you make is a perfectly serious one.
At the moment I can choose how to participate in Mass. I can read what's being said in the Missal, I can pray silently, say the Rosary or some other prayers. But I don't have any choice if someone is up there signing. It irritates me so much that I want to respond to the "Dominus Vobiscum" with a "Reverse Churchill". Which is probably sinful (forgive me) but it is so annoying!
BTW, sign language is now being invaded by the demon of political correctness. You used to be able to sign the word "gay" by the flick of a limp wrist. Now, the PC sign for "gay" is an upright thumb on one hand in the palm of the other, wobbling from side to side.
Deus in adjutorium meum intende!!
Aures habent et non audient?
GOTO - the main point to understand about the Last Supper is that it was most definitely not an ordinary family meal. We find this difficult to understand because we do not have sacred meals. "The Eucharistic Words of Jesus" by Joachim Jeremias goes into some detail on what probably did happen. The most likely posture was that of reclining, all on the same side of the (low) table, all facing the same way, with Jesus in the place of honour at the right.
Anne Katherine Emmerich apparently had similar ideas to yours about Our Lady etc. but they were in the next room, I think (one of my students was telling me this the other day - must read the book sometime.)
On hearing, seeing & understanding: consider the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. The priest goes behind the iconostasis for the most sacred part of the Liturgy. The people understand quite a bit about what is happening, I think. Eamonn Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars" is a pretty definitive answer to the common claim that in the middle ages the people did not know what was going on.
Of course the question at the heart of all this is what is really meant by actuosa participatio. Something to come back to soon.
Placing a crucifix on the altar seems to be a logical position for the priest during Mass if he faces the people. Without it, it must be hard for him to concentrate fully if he finds himself staring at the church clock on the wall for example.
There are so many different variations now on how Mass is celebrated. Last Sunday I saw yet another. There was indeed a Crucifix - a processional one - but it was placed at the side of the altar on the floor. I wondered whether the priest would turn towards it at some time or if not what was the point? French churches seem to love everything asymetrical including having two candles on just one side of the altar. personally I much prefer the harmony of the same number of candles each side. the one sided positioning just jars and feels uncomfortable.
Ah thanks be to God for Fr Tim & his friend my Parish Priest!
Karen..with respect the 9 women in this household don't want to be on the sanctuary...
oh my the signing for 'gay'! that wrist thing was hysterical..as are all the suggestions for not facing East..
We have some priests in our diocese who prefer to hold up the host during the Eucharistic prayer (at about the height of a minor elevation) from the, "take this" until the beginning of "this is My Body", turning slowly from one side of the church to the other as if to show everyone the host before it is consecrated. I understand that they're trying to accentuate the point of "take this all of you and eat it" but I often have reason to question whether it's really accomplishing much of anything at all. If it's an attempt to increase participation, I have to think that if they can't be deeply involved in prayer already having an unconsecrated host shown them isn't suddenly going to snap them into deep internal participation.
For my part, I'm all for ad orientem as I believe there has been a great confusion between participation and "being able to see what's going on". That was perhaps one of the great geniuses of the TLM - with the movements so closely prescribed and also somewhat more hidden we in the pews could not mistake critiquing the priest's posture, cadence or facial expression for participation. I'd like to believe such could be encouraged in a Mass said versus populum but it seems to be fraught with the danger of participating with actions rather than prayer.
When I first attended a TLM I was dumbfounded by how much I had to concentrate on what was going on and at the same time how it freed me to just pray rather than follow the minutiae of movements and words. Ever since then I've tried to bring that experience of internal participatory prayer to my normal Mass versus populum but I will admit I have not always been as successful as I'd have liked.
I've gone on far too long, forgive me.
moretben - you can see a miracle right before your eyes. You can also see what the priest is doing just prior to consecration. But to each his own. I'm told that some people don't mind obstructed view seats at a theatre either. I've never been one of them.
Fr. Francis: What do you mean "took all the signs of the cross away?" Maybe in England the priest plays mumblety peg, but over here, if they've been trained right they still make the signs of the crosses over the gifts, etc. It's not a free for all. At least if you go where it's done right. When your priest is 79, he does it right. He doesn't make it up as he goes along.
Dr. Peter ... have you ever been on stage in a play? It is surprising how extremely NARROW a view from the stage one has if one is focused on what they are supposed to be looking at. For instance, on stage, you can be speaking to another character, you may see the person in row 2 seat 3 IF that person is literally just beyond the person you are to look at - if you are focused you will not see the person in seat 2 or 4 the person directly in front or behind. Just that ONE seat - oh, you're aware there are "bodies" out there, but a mass - you don't really "see" them at all. I agree depending on the church a suspended crucifix over the altar where it falls in line with say, the forward edge of the altar, may or may not "work" architecturally. If it does, fine. Seems to me, the biggest "looking up to heaven moment" is at the elevation anyway, where the priest is looking at the host. Altar rail isn't an obstruction it being very low - so to all those who kept theirs in, I say "congrats, well done."
I have to say the sole thing I don't like re: the eastern rite liturgy, is that you can't see ZIP of the most important part of the Mass unless you are in the sanctuary - so for 50% of us, that's not going to happen.
I love the sounds, prayers, etc. - in some respects I like bits of the liturgy far and away more - for instance in particular the prayer said by the congregation just before Communion. See my "if I could play liturgist post here.
Perhaps if we in the Latin rite said that prayer, there'd be people who finally "Get" that "yes, this is the Real Presence" when you spell it out that plainly even the dumb guy that stepped out for a beer when the rest of us had this got it. If we were going to go borrowing bits from here and there it should have been the best things. (I REALLY loath the protestant tag "for the kingdom, power and glory are yours." WHO needed that? It's a true statement, but it's a sop to the phoney feel-good ecumenism.)
As far as I am concerned, Jackie, being a father is a "job for a boy" - ditto the priesthood. After that, it's negotiable. Last I looked Benediction was for everybody, and everybody can see everything. It's a favorite devotion, and frankly, had the stupid hippies not suppressed that good practice, we'd be in better shape. Ditto taking a firm stand re: Humanae Vitae - in my opinion, that's were things really went bad.
And Jackie, does your hearing impaired child think the signing at Mass is ludicrous? If a deaf person can lip read, great. But there's probably a way to do it so the deaf person gets the benefit, but it's not distracting to the priest, or the rest of the congregants.
Cappadocian Sister: I'm not saying the pope has nothing to say, or not even that he's not very learned man on the subject. But I simply say that perhaps if he really did say "People's focus should be on the crucifix on the altar" he's REALLY got the barn on fire. [Uh, Pope Benedict: When Jesus is in your hands, THAT'S who I'm looking at....not the cross, nor even *you* - I "see" you, but even YOU are not my focus!]
As for the same side of the table: Okay, we're all on the same side of the table. Jesus breaks the bread, try this yourself - everyone sit on one side of the table -- unless you are BLIND who in heck can't see what Jesus just did, unless the person sneezed at that moment? Now if Judas wanted to hide behind the punch bowl -- but I would think they'd ALL have a good view, given they're in a close enough reach to dip into the bowl of bitter herbs.
And if John can rest his head on Jesus, then yes, I'd say they were mighty close.
Ma: I guess if you're in India at Mass this makes a difference? No one said Fr.'s being "mean" -- he's just not cellophane man. As far as the 2nd coming goes - I don't care if Jesus comes from the East, West, North, South, or a hot air balloon, the only important thing for me to know is He's going to show up. Period. Why it would need to be the LITERAL truth, I have no clue. It's like speaking of "the four corners of the earth."
The synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John disagree on whether it was a Passover meal or not. Does it matter in the long run? No. The Eastern Rite is more Johannine in tradition - hence leavened bread - the western rite has unleavened bread - both are valid, no one gets upset - they are both "right." In reality at the event ONE or the other happened. One of them is historically "right" one "wrong." But they are STILL both "right" because the only thing that ultimately matters is that Jesus comes to us and is transubstantiated into the Real Presence.
Oh, and Fr. Tim - I'd like to look the book up - sounds like a fun read.
Karen
The Dolorous Passion of
Our Lord Jesus Christ
From the Meditations of
Anne Catherine Emmerich is available for free download as a pdf from www.hismercy.ca/content/HM_ebooks.html - sorry if the last bit of this link gets cut off just go to the website of 'hismercy.ca' and navigate within there. The above ebook is one of many excellent downloads available on that page.
GOTO - you keep implying that that the Pope's intention was that the priest should focus on the crucifix rather than the consecrated host. That misses the point as I have explained in the body of the post.
One of the intentions of Summorum Pontificum was that the two forms of the rite should be mutually enriching. This is relevant to some of this discussion. It is difficult to understand the Pope's point about the crucifix without some familiarity with the old rite. And certainly most of the signs of the cross were taken out of the new rite (along with most of the genuflections.) What is left is a vestige of these signs in the Mass.
The point about the Last Supper was made simply to establish that it was not (Leonardo-style) Jesus and the apostles sitting round a table. Nor was it a cosy family meal. It was a sacred liturgical meal: a particular variant of the communion sacrifice.
In fact, the early Christian Liturgy did not attempt to reproduce the liturgy of the Last Supper in any way. The only part which remains in the Christian Liturgy is the words of institution.
(The Orthodox use of leavened bread is not to do with the disagreement between John and the synoptics. They quote the Apostolic Constitutions which said that the Christian should feast while the Jews are fasting with unleavened bread of bitterness.)
That prayer from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is indeed beautiful and very suitable for people to use as a private prayer. I would not want to see it inserted into the Roman Liturgy because one of the problems with the modern Roman rite is, as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, it is a fabrication rather than something that has grown organically out of our own tradition.
Thanks for all your comments by the way - you have certainly got a good discussion going!
Karen..she wouldn't be lip reading coz fr isn't facing US but the Lord. Strange to say i can always see the elevation of Our Blessed Lord ..but it's not a pantomine anyway. Even when we sat at the back with our little ones we fully participated in the Mass. The grace & beauty of the Priest & the male servers is wonderful to behold. It's been 11 years since i saw a Priest face the congregation on a Sunday Mass so i can't see what all the fuss is about.
Apart from the fact that there is a quiet reverence in the presence of the Lord. Our Priests are very much 'in the background' in that they are totally absorbed as you can see with Fr Tim, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. My hearing impaired child knows who Jesus is & understands the sacrificial nature of the Mass..please don't tell me you could sign that!
Why do people want to make allowances on behalf of disabled people?Particularly ones they don't want. Who is it feeling good?
Sorry Karen, but we began our postings with a few differences which seemed to settle..but have surfaced again.
I have just put a picture of our east window on the header of my blog, it is what my predecessors would have glimpse when they were "looking up to heaven", now I just see the roof trusses, when I look beyond the crucifix which is on my altar I see the back wall or the lino in the aisle of the nave, that needs renewing.
Gem.
You're not at a theatrical performance. If you are able to "see" what happens, you are the recipient of extraordinary mystical gifts, denied to the greatest saints and theologians. Our Lord's Presence in the eucharistic species is not a "miracle" strictly speaking; a miracle is by definition accessible to and verifiable by, the senses; but no-one can "see" the substance of what happens on the altar. What we should be able to see is a living incarnation of Trinitarian worship - Sacrifice offered "through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, to the Father", as expressed in the common orientation of priest and people, by which the meaning of the entire liturgical action is revealed. It seems to me that your "theatre" analogy indicates a reduction of the whole to the bare act of transubstantiation, detached from the dimension of sacrifice; but it is the Sacrifice that is essential - that brings about the Sacrament. Sacrifice is not offered to the people, "facing the people". It is not a mere performance. It is offered to God, facing God.
It's not as though, in the Roman rite, you are deprived of the opportunity to reverence the Host at the consecration, so what's the problem?
You should really make an effort to read and understand what the Pope says about this, leaving behind your likes, dislikes and (if I may say)wisecracking flippancy. I think they're obstructing your view in a rather more serious sense than the back of the chasuble.
I carry a Missal with me to Mass. I no more need to know what Father is saying or doing than anyone else, though I must admit, I ALWAYS know what he is doing or saying by reading the convenient red text.
He is NOT speaking to me. He is offering a Sacrifice.
It is not.about.me.
Or deaf people.
Or blind people.
Or lactose intolerant, height-challenged persons of color.
Or anyone else on God's earth.
Theologically, ad orientem is natural.
Versus populum is not.
If you were leading me through the woods to your house, would you be facing me and walking backwards?
The priest is LEADING us. We are following him.
I'm sorry some people can't hear him.
That's why God invented missals.
(At no TLM Low Mass can you hear Father either. Somehow, it managed to assist in the sanctification of millions of future saints and martyrs.)
This argument is ridonkculous.
The greatest living theologian (and one of the most generally brilliant people on the planet) writes on the value of ad orientem and we question it?
I used to think ad orientem was odd, until I meditated on some writings regarding the subject and opened my heart and mind to the possibility that I might have been too quick to judge its merits or lack thereof.
GOTO - I mean in the Traditional Rite there are many signs of the Cross made over host and chalice whereas in the Novus Ordo there is only one made at the beginnig of the words of consecration.
The Hoyl Father wants that one rite will inform the other but we must remember that the rubrics of whatever rite are prescritive and i was taught in the seminary that to add something to the Mass that is not there is just as bad as subtracting. Hence the rubrics of the Novus Orddo instruct the priest to make several signs of the cross - therefore we should not even though I am ofte ntepmpted to do so!!!
Can I have a go at Karen's theatrical analogy, too ?
Yes, (in my younger days) I've been on stage, and I understand about "focus" while facing the audience.
The fact is, however, you can't see beyond the glare of the footlights and the arc lights into the dark of the auditorium.
You act at your fellow actors, but deliver your lines into the darkness where (you presume) the audience is.
The theatrical analogy fails at this point, because :
(a). Although the liturgy is in a sense a drama, it is not, as Moretben points out, a theatrical production.
The priest is not an actor delivering his lines.
(b). A church is simply nothing like a theatre.
From the sanctuary, when versus populum, you can't avoid seeing the nave and the congregation, like it or not.
It was good to read a priest's comment on this.
Fr. Ray Blake in his comment compared what he sees ad orientem (the east window, etc., above and behind the high altar) with what he can't help seeing versus populum (roof trusses, the back wall, worn lino in the nave).
This brings us to the question :
What does the priest see on the altar ?
He sees the bread and wine.
There is nothing else to see.
There is no visible change at the Consecration.
The appearance of the Eucharistic species is no different from the appearance of the unconsecrated bread and wine.
The Host and Chalice are elevated for you to see and adore.
There's nothing else to see on the altar.
Hence, in the (far more important)context of what the priest is doing, the I-can't-see-what-he's-doing argument fails.
Whether the priest is celebrating ad orientem, behind an iconostasis, or is partially obscured by a large crucifix on the altar, the fact is that my very God is concealed beneath the veil of bread.
(Surely they sing "O Bread of Heaven" in the US ?)
You all take me TOO literally about the theatrical comparison. It is NOT the theatre, but it undeniably has similar elements. The sanctuary is set "just so" special vestments are worn, particular objects are used, specific dialog is used. This is all done to appeal to the senses and as Father Tim says expresses the relation of man to God. Of course the accidents of the bread/wine stay same, no where did I even imply differently. When I say I can "see" what the priest is doing I mean just that - I see how he is holding his hands over the gifts, how he makes the gestures etc. Jackie, if you think only male servers should be privileged, fine. That's you. You've also said when your boys are away you miss them more than your girls - it's all "feelings" and feelings are pretty subjective. I only know how my mom felt when she brought home all "A"s and her mom said "oh, that's nice" while her brother who didn't get as good grades as she did got fussed all over "Because he's a boy and boys are special." Grammy was from "the old country" when the peasant family depended on the males to be the be all and end all. She did love her daughters equally - but it hurt my mom's feelings all the same. And in the end who sat up by my grandmother night after night in her last years? A daughter. Who checked on her health every day that she was okay? Another daughter. Who looked after her when she broke her hip? Another daughter. As much as my grandmother loved all her daughters, my mom always felt my grandmother loved her sons a little bit more. When I was very little I was told by our nun that unless we were cleaning the sanctuary, we'd get to be in it for our wedding and our first communion and our confirmation. What a revelation it was to me to see what the priest was actually doing when he faced the people. I have to say I want it ALL at Mass. If I'm at Mass I'm ALL IN. And morteben, dictionary definitions notwithstanding I say that if I'm looking at a piece of mere bread and a chalice of wine and seconds later it's consecrated into the Real Presence, that, to me is a miracle. There are places all over the world where millions of people can not practice their faith freely, and yet those of us in free countries with access to Mass can see a miracle every day. For those who prefer the TKM, I AM glad the pope has made it clear they aren't to be treated as lepers. For too long the Church did that. It wasn't fair. But have a heart for those of us who want to see what the heck is going on.
Well Karen..like you i was only jesting..re the boys their development lags behing girls until they catch up & dare i say overtake..it would be too awful however to have female altar servers..they were only expcted to be used if no males were available. It's a bit like the extraordinary ministers they were only expected to be used in very few circumstances..not like the routine you get in other churches..there is a document 'on the collaboration of the laity' which i must dig out. It also says people who are not Priests should avoid the term 'chaplain'...it really gets me mad when they say at some schools..Miss so & so is our Chapl;ain..although some will qualify & say lay..sorry i rather wondered off the topic here..but yes with boys moms often fuss over them more but that's because girls are so independent!
Phooey on Cardinal Ratzinger.
Karen, thank you for reminding me why I skip over your comments in the Catholic blogs I read.
"And hence the absurdity of "signing" the Mass for deaf people.
I suggested to our diocesan disability co-ordinator once that the old Mass was more inclusive for deaf people because they were not disadvantaged compared to others in the congregation. I don't think she had heard that line of argument before :-)"
As a Deaf priest and a big fan of your blog, the old Mass is more inclusive than the new Mass only if it is not signed. American Sign Language and British Sign Language are very unique languages with their own phonology, grammer, and syntax, etc.
I have often thought about facing eastward while signing the Canon. It would be done "silently" or as we say in ASL: "no voice."
Post a Comment