Our first Ad Orientem all English 12:10 PM Sunday Mass, now the norm for this Mass:
For almost a month now, our 12:10 PM Sunday Mass has been celebrated in the "Reform of the Reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass" mode. This means that the Liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrated ad orientem. Everything else about the Mass is as it always has been.
I asked from the beginning for people to offer me their comments and concerns. Overall the response has been overwhelmingly positive with only one negative concern.
So let me highlight the negative concern first. I thought it interesting and a valid point in light of the fact that we've been celebrating the Mass facing the congregation for almost 45 years (out of 2000). The person felt that the priest was in the way of this person's love of seeing the unconsecrated elements on the altar prior to their consecration and then in the way after their consecration. They couldn't see the bread and wine on the altar.
I have two points to make about this comment and based upon my liberal formation in the seminary in the 1970's. The Eucharist is an action to be celebrated, not something to adore and watch, but something to act upon, eat and drink! Yes, I was taught that.
Yet progressives who love the Mass facing the people get into a hissy fit as we say down here if they can't see what is on the altar and they get into a hissy fit if the priest elevates the consecrated Bread and Wine a bit too high, a bit too long and bit with too much devotion. How odd! But if you emphasize the Mass as Meal over and above a Sacrifice, seeing what is on the altar as though it is a table rather than an altar of sacrifice, then the priest is in the way! But isn't the modern theology of progressives precisely that--the ordained priest is in the way which de-emphasizes his sacramental sign and authority to the nth degree?
Think about a grand dinner in your own home in the formal dinning room. Isn't the dinning room separated from the kitchen in the traditional design of homes? Doesn't the cook or chef do his work in the kitchen (the holy of holies, where in olden days the animals were dispatched where they were sacrificed in the oven? The cook does his/her thing out of sight of the formal guests. Then the guest gather in the dinning room for the lovely presentation of the food, that got to their table in not so lovely a fashion! The guests aren't asking the cook to turn away from the cook's butchering and certainly not away from the stove so they can see what is happening for the kitchen is usually behind closed doors. This is true in most restaurants too!
I think the Eastern Rite and the Orthodox capture this sign even more profoundly with the iconostasis.
The positive comments that I have receive was summed up best yesterday. "Father, I love the way you are celebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It is like you are with us in celebrating the Eucharist as you lead us in worshiping God and giving thanks. And it is so clear when you turn to the congregation that what you are singing or saying is directed to us and then when you turn toward the altar you are praying to God with us and on our behalf--you are the priest, the mediator in the same way that Jesus Christ is the one High Priest and the one Mediator between God and man."
And yes, isn't that the sacramental sign of the priest at Mass? He is the sacramental sign of Jesus Christ who represents us before God the Father and who speaks to us on God the Father's behalf. Have we lost that in the last 50 years--the profound sacramental character of Holy Orders and its necessity for the validity of the Mass and signage of Jesus Christ? I would say that the reason we have so few vocations to the priesthood today compared to the pre-Vatican II times lies precisely in the loss of the reason for the priest and his unique calling not fulfilled by anyone else in the congregation. He is the priest, the sign of Christ the High Priest who brings us to God and God to us! If that isn't perfectly clear, why would a young man consider the priesthood?
My own experience of facing the altar for the Liturgy of the Eucharist confirms for me in a way not as clear when I face the congregation that I am a priest in the classical definition of the term. But more importantly, as a priest, I am a frail human sign, a meager sign of the One I represent, Jesus Christ the High Priest and that I need to get out of the way so that He might be encountered in a veiled way.
There are two things I've adjusted in celebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem. When I turn to the congregation for the Orate Frates, I remain facing the congregation for the completion of their response since they are speaking to me directly. The Mass we videoed, I turned back to the altar as they were speaking to me which did strike me as poor etiquette. Of course there are no clear rubrics on this in the missal.
Secondly I turn to the congregation for the Preface Dialogue, since I am speaking to the congregation. I turn to the altar when the congregation chants "It is right and just."
Then I remain facing the altar until after the Pater Noster when I turn to say (chant) "The Peace of the Lord be with you always" and for the Sign of Peace.
And of course I turn to the congregation for the "Ecce Agnus Dei" and the congregation's response. Isn't this the most important time for the congregation to see the Eucharist and also as they come forward to receive?
I must add that when I turn to face the congregation for "The Peace of the Lord be with you always" that I feel that I'm symbolically coming out of the "holy of holies" as a chef coming out of the hot kitchen where the Sacrifice is offered to bring the congregation the good news of what has occurred, that the meal is prepared and our Communion in the Body and Blood of the Lord is at hand and the peace this brings! It is awesome and so priestly!
13 comments:
Nicely stated, Fr. Amen!
In the EF at the Orate Fratres the priest should wait for the server to complete the response before adding Amen and then proceeding to the Secret. Not all of them did! In the OF the celebrant should wait for the conclusion of the response before turning back to the altar, and completing the circle (this last is traditional to the Roman Rite, but is only done at this point because the missal is on the celebrant's left).
In my opinion, the Preface dialogue should be said or sung facing the altar. This is because a) the GIRM does not instruct the priest to face the people at this point, in contrast to the Orate fratres, Pax Domini, and Ecce Agnus Dei. b) The priest is leading the people at this point and using the first person plural - Gatias agamus Domino Deo nostro. Sursum corda was almost certainly mistranslated by Cranmer. It is the deacon, not the priest who gives direct instructions to the people, eg Ite, missa est and in the OF Offerte vobis pacem, and faces the people as he does so. Sursum corda is not an instruction; 'Let our hearts be on high' 'We hold them to the Lord' is what is meant here. In the recent translation ICEL suggested this, but the bishops demurred.
On a similar thread, what does Dominus vobiscum mean? The Latin omits the verb. However, since the priest extends his hands when he says it, we can infer the subjunctive Dominus [sit] vobiscum. When the deacon says it before the Gospel he keeps his hands joined, so perhaps we should infer the indicative Dominus [est] vobiscum.
Good stuff, Father. One thing that has had a profound impact on our worship within the Byzantine Rite is the exclamation of the Priest just prior to serving communion: "Approach with fear of God and with faith!"
The elements have been offered and consecrated, and are visible to the people for the first time from behind the iconostasis, albeit still within the chalice.
When the unconsecrated elements are brought forth from the prothesis (table of preparation), they are covered and still not visible to the people. Only the vessels are shown to the people during the "Great Entrance", signifying the lamb being led to the slaughter...
Father, is it impractical to use the high altar, or is that your intention in the future?
I like very much your celebration of the Mass, and am in full agreement with the changes you have made. As to those having hissy fits--let 'em. I don't recall there being much concern 40+ years ago when the wreckovation was shoved down our throats.
I am confident that, over time, your continuing catechesis will being these people around. And for those who are stubborn, there are other parishes.
Father, just as a check for your own celebration, you might want to check out the Pope's baptismal Mass videos on Youtube, in which he celebrates in the Sistine Chapel and ad orientem. Great video, though!
Do people really complain about how you elevate the Host and for how long? I assume it is not on tippy toe like some of those photos you showed in another post. What do they say during Adoration?
Looking at the photographs of the sanctuary, the forward altar is fixed and presumably consecrated. It is of a noble design (if a little small) and there is plenty of space in front of it, which makes it suitable for ad orientem celebration. According to the GIRM it would not be licit to celebrate the OF at the old high altar. The GIRM does not apply to the EF, but it usually looks wrong if there is a fixed altar between the congregation and the celebrant. Moveable altars can be, well, moved; and sometimes where there is a modern 'cube', very far forward and considerably lower so that it doesn't get in the way, use of the old high altar is practicable. But not here, I think.
Regarding your statement "The Eucharist is an action to be celebrated, not something to adore and watch, but something to act upon, eat and drink! Yes, I was taught that."
It's interesting to compare that '70s notion with the following excerpt from Anglican Article 25:
"The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them."
If you look at the pictures of our sanctuary from the perspective of the congregation,not from the choir loft, the free standing altar is on the same level as the old altar and thus appears from the congregation to form a unit, in other words the old altar mensa is not visible to the congregation. Thus if I were to celebrate the EF Mass there, you would only seen the upper part of my back and head and you wouldn't see the altar servers at all if they were kneeling--it would look quite odd. And yes the new altar is completely consecrated and is the main altar of the church, the old altar is simply its reredos now and houses the tabernacle. For about 40 years beginning in the late 1960's the tabernacle was moved to the Blessed Mother's altar. I replaced it on the old altar about three years ago! I would say that is the most important thing I have accomplished as pastor of St. Joseph Church, recovering the central tabernacle as the place for the Blessed Sacrament!
My first year in the seminary, our first year class wanted Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament regularly at the seminary, which refused to have it. The faculty were incensed that we wanted it since as they told us Vatican II did away with it! Yes, they told us that. However, they begrudingly allowed it for one time a year only! But this is what they demanded, that the consecrated host, which was made of wheat, flower, honey, salt and other ingredients, and most likely invalid matter (although I pray that the Church supplied for us poor seminarians what was lacking in terms of validity) not be placed in a monstrance (which would have been impossible anyway) but be placed on a plate (paten, which is a term they would not use) and that a "cup" of consecrated wine be present as well on the altar. So at exposition these two "consecrated" elements were place upon the altar, we did not sing O Salutaris or Tantum Ergo but rather eating and drinking songs were substituted like, Gift of Finest Wheat and We are One Bread and One Body, etc--a full blown Liturgy of the Word where the Book of Scriptures were on the altar with the consecrated elements too! Then at the Benediction, the Paten and Cup were raised by the deacon, although there were priests available who offered the blessing or Benediction. Wild, no?
And these are the clergy we're supposed to believe when they say there has been no rupture?
How did you manage to turn out so well, given that environment? Of your classmates, what percentage do you think turned out, like you, to be orthodox?
Yes, Fr Allan bucked the trend. But I have come across priests of his (which is my) generation who had a very liberal seminary formation but who saw the light later. There was a problem with the English seminary in Rome (the Venerabile) twenty years ago where students were discouraged from wearing the cassock and were put under surveillance if they attended Latin Masses. Yet homosexuals were let through as long as they toed the liberal line.
Reason number 125,973,014 for not celebrating the anniversary of Vatican II.
It was the mid seventies! At by the time I got there,in 1976 the seminary was starting to tightening things up. The worst time for St. Mary's was 1972 to 1974 and 1974 being the absolute worst! So we all took things in stride thinking this is what the Holy Spirit wanted in some really mysterious way. Our class in the fall of 1976 was about 60 which was huge by the standards back then even. When we got ordained, we were down to 23, with the more conservative ones disillusioned and gone, the ones we would have called back then the rigid ones. I think we've lost about 13 out of the 23 ordained to either death, leaving to get married or otherwise or being defrocked. So that brings our class today to about 10!
Post a Comment