If only those silly people had been praying in Latin instead of French, and if only those disrespectful wimmin had been hearing mantillas instead of going bare-headed, God would have head their prayers and save them from Jeanette Loi!
It was a traditional Mass, I would think. This this is a priest of the Institute of the Good Shepherd. (Seems he was ordained by but later left the SSPX).
Women in Europe don't wear mantillas, as a rule. Maybe John Nolan has some insight on that for us.
I guess Catholic Churches do NEED to arm themselves. This shows why France is in the mess it is in today. They wouldn't dare do this to Muslims because these gutless wonders would never risk having their heads cut off. Mass would have been over shortly and the police could have secured the church after that. I will NOT hold my breath waiting for Pope Francis to make a statement in support of the Church. If it were a mosque he would be slobbering over the police's over reaction in a nanosecond.
Can you imagine St. John Paul II's reaction in his heyday? He would have jumped in a plane and gone to Paris and kicked the crap out of the cowardly French Gendarmes!
This is, no doubt, a shocking thing to behold. The real problem, however, as I understand it, is that the government in France owns the church buildings---the bishop does not hold title to the real estate as he does here in the U.S.
As to the subject of ad orientem in the Diocese of Savannah, Georgia, have any of our Georgia folks read Fr. Douglas K. Clark's commentary article in the July 21, 2016 edition of our Diocesan newspaper, "The Southern Cross?"
In the article, (entitled "Facing God in his People") Fr. Clark recounts the Cardinal Sarah/Bishop Nichols/Holy See Press Office sequence of events wherein he writes that Card. Sarah's ad orientem invitation was "countermanded."
The article fails to point out the controversy over the correct translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal regarding the placement of altars and celebration of Mass facing the people. Fr. Clark would have us believe (as would Bishop Nichols) that the phrase "which is desirable wherever possible" applies to the "Mass can be celebrated facing the people" passage rather than to "The altar should be built separate from the wall" passage. Again, as with the recent retranslation of the Mass from Latin to English, the translation of this instruction which seems to have prevailed as unquestionably authoritative for the past 40 years may need to be re-examined. Fr. Clark would have done well to first look at this question regarding the accuracy of the translation of the GIRM on this issue (and point it out in his commentary).
In addition, while he may be correct that altars began to be attached to the apse wall between the 10th and 12th centuries, I sincerely doubt that versus apsidem (ad orientem) celebration of Mass began at that time, too. Besides, "resourcement" isn't always the best approach to things---what about babies peeing in immersion baptismal pools (or naked females being baptized privately by female "deaconesses"?). What about public confessions of private personal sins as in the early Church. Sometimes experience and slowly evolving accreted tradition can be the best way of doing things.
Reesourcement and looking to the early Church without considering what happened between then and now does not always yield the best practices for use today.
Yes, I'm waiting for a comment from Francis too - he comments on everything else but I think I'll be waiting a long time as others say, if this had been a mosque ...
While I am very much in favor of ad orientem worship, the repeated claim that the Latin rubric is mistranslated is just plain silly. The Holy See itself clarified over a decade ago that the rubric does indeed refer both to the altar and to versus populum worship. It seems to be Father Z who keeps stirring up this "bad translation" argument. He needs to be assigned full time to a parish so he can develop a healthy understanding of the priesthood.
"Can you imagine St. John Paul II's reaction in his heyday? He would have jumped in a plane and gone to Paris and kicked the crap out of the cowardly French Gendarmes!"
What a bunch of self-serving, revisionist clap-trap. The author of this sentence is trapped in his own un-historical delusions.
Not really, you are the one with delusions and a very bad memory.John Paul II ferociously faced down the communists and threatened to lay down the papal tiara and go to Poland, if necessary, to protect his beloved Poles. The problem is left-wingers like you either do not know any history or willfully refuse to heed its lessons.
Joseph Johnson, the foremost Latinist in the Roman Catholic Church, Brother Reginald (hardly a conservative) agrees with Father Z. I'd take his word any day over some simpleton bishop trying to preserve an unsatisfactory status quo. So before spouting off, get the facts.
Dialogue, Well, it certainly helps my feelings when you say that you are personally very much in favor of ad orientem worship. . . your posting name, "Dialogue," is very appropriate in this case.
And so I suppose that anytime a priest or bishop offers Mass from a free-standing altar ad orientem he violates the rubric that Mass be offered facing the people "which is desirable whenever possible." I'm not saying that the prevailing understanding of this rubric is incorrect--I'm just trying see how it can be read consistently with other GIRM rubric(s) which refer to the priest turning toward the people (which would seem to imply that he was facing away from them) during the Canon of the Mass as well as the long-standing liturgical tradition of the Church (which I am convinced is versus apsidem).
As for the St. Peter's and ancient Roman basilica examples that are often cited to support versus populum, what about the part in the earlier history of the Mass where the priest would say "conversi ad Dominum" (turn towards the Lord)? I have read that this refers to the people then turning towards the East (facing away from the priest) with both priest and people all facing East at that point in the Mass. If this basilican example (with the exhortation, "turn towards the Lord") were still to be followed in my home parish of St. Joseph in Waycross, Ga., the priest is already facing geographical East when he offers Mass versus populum, so at the exhortation, we would all turn to the East (with him to our backs) and face the narthex!
I guess, strictly speaking, I am very much an advocate of versus apsidem or "liturgical East!"
If it doesn't matter which way we face during the Mass, then why do people in the Vatican and bishops elsewhere seem so concerned that the priest *must* face the people?
Armand, I think we all know that God isn't "here" or "there," to remind of this fact misses the point. We are talking about Supernatural Realities and the best way to reinforce/express our belief in those Realities and in HIM in a visual/spatial/finite world. I think we are talking of a kind of "sign value" or, at a minimum, a better way to help us focus our minds on something that our minds cannot fully comprehend.
If we all turn towards the Eucharist in the Monstrance at Benediction where God is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament then what is wrong with a cult (culture) of worship that continues our past traditions of that unified physical focus in the Mass while still having some of the reforms that are legitimately envisioned in SC?
By the way, TJM, I love the EF Latin Mass as well as anyone but I hope you are not referring to me as a "foremost Latinist" as I am not!
Of course all of this is symbolic and has bearing on reverence. God is everywhere but we finite human beings need symbols to direct our prayer, be it a crucifix, altar, upwards or with eyes closed.
The Liturgy East (again not necessarily geographical) is SYMBOLIC and has meaning beyond the visual!
Yes, our orientation is symbolic. The question becomes, then, why is the symbolism of "ad orientem" woship better than versus populum as a symbol of our faith...?
Or, to put it another way, what, if anything, is lacking in versus populum that is found in ad orientem?
I think that facing liturgical East does have a bearing on reverence, but not the sort of reverence that we usually discuss.
By adopting an orientation contrary to the eastern-facing liturgical orientation that has been delivered to us by the Church as it was practiced over two millennia, we lack reverence for the tradition itself and for the faith of our ancestors.
I am glad you love the EF. I was not referring to you as the foremost Latinist in the Church, but to Brother Reginald Foster, who is. He says Father Z is correct and the boobs at the Holy See are wrong. I am betting with Brother Reginald and Father Z. Sorry. Why would you trust agenda driven bureaucrats? They're the ones that handed us the disaster that is the OF
TJM, Thanks for the clarification. Also thanks for the explanation about Brother Reginald and his differing interpretation of the GIRM on versus populum. If he is correct then the GIRM would not appear to contradict itself in other parts (about the priest turning around to face the people), as I have suggested. In other words, if Brother Reginald's interpretation is correct then the GIRM would consistently presume ad orientem but allows for versus populum (with no stated preference for it).
BINGO, although the liars at the USCCB and Vatican have been stating otherwise. The rubrics clearly contemplate ad orientem celebration, the inveterate practice of the ages. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Latin would readily see that. Ideology can be the only explanation for their ludicrous position.When I experienced an English language Mass celebrated ad orientem for the first time, I was awestruck and found a feeling of continuity with the EF.
All of this "turns toward the Lord" talk presumes that the Lord is here, not there, or that the Lord can be turned to "this way," but not "that way."
The light of the sun is everywhere, and to differing degrees, on days that are not clear, even penetrates the clouds which assemble in the firmament . Observe the living plants plants and flowers which orient themselves toward the sun. It is to their benefit to do so since the light provides what is essential and necessary for their growth and well being. So it is that we should orient ourselves toward the Divine Sun whether at Mass or in the Adoration chapel, in order to more fully benefit from the light of His Divine grace penetrating our souls, for our spiritual health and well-being .
We also observe how plants and flowers find what is beneficial and necessary to their growth and well-being in the rain that falls upon them. The water vapor which is everywhere present in the air around them is of some benefit, but it is not sufficient in quantity to provide what is necessary for them to flourish. In some way it is true that God, even more so than the water vapor in the air around us, is present everywhere and that His presence is of benefit to our continued existence. The water vapor in the air does provide some to benefit us, but one would die of thirst if one does not go and partake of water where it is in a more concentrated form. So it is that we should go and orient ourselves to where God is more substantially present, to partake of His Divine Substance in the Holy Mass and to orient toward, and to benefit from, His Divine presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
All of this "turns toward the Lord" talk presumes that the Lord is here, not there, or that the Lord can be turned to "this way," but not "that way."
The light of the sun is everywhere, and to differing degrees, on days that are not clear, even penetrates the clouds which assemble in the firmament . Observe the living plants plants and flowers which orient themselves toward the sun. It is to their benefit to do so since the light provides what is essential and necessary for their growth and well being. So it is that we should orient ourselves toward the Divine Sun whether at Mass or in the Adoration chapel, in order to more fully benefit from the light of His Divine grace penetrating our souls, for our spiritual health and well-being .
We also observe how plants and flowers find what is beneficial and necessary to their growth and well-being in the rain that falls upon them. The water vapor which is everywhere present in the air around them is of some benefit, but it is not sufficient in quantity to provide what is necessary for them to flourish. In some way it is true that God, even more so than the water vapor in the air around us, is present everywhere and that His presence is of benefit to our continued existence. The water vapor in the air does provide some to benefit us, but one would die of thirst if one does not go and partake of water where it is in a more concentrated form. So it is that we should go and orient ourselves to where God is more substantially present, to partake of His Divine Substance in the Holy Mass and to orient toward, and to benefit from, His Divine presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
My comment @ 11:10 AM and at August 5, 2016 at 6:44 PM (which I inadvertently posted as Anonymous) is about my perspective on worship, adoration and orientation.
Billy the Kid-I did get a laugh out of your comment though.
24 comments:
If only those silly people had been praying in Latin instead of French, and if only those disrespectful wimmin had been hearing mantillas instead of going bare-headed, God would have head their prayers and save them from Jeanette Loi!
Sacre Blue!
It was a traditional Mass, I would think. This this is a priest of the Institute of the Good Shepherd. (Seems he was ordained by but later left the SSPX).
Women in Europe don't wear mantillas, as a rule. Maybe John Nolan has some insight on that for us.
I guess Catholic Churches do NEED to arm themselves. This shows why France is in the mess it is in today. They wouldn't dare do this to Muslims because these gutless wonders would never risk having their heads cut off. Mass would have been over shortly and the police could have secured the church after that. I will NOT hold my breath waiting for Pope Francis to make a statement in support of the Church. If it were a mosque he would be slobbering over the police's over reaction in a nanosecond.
Can you imagine St. John Paul II's reaction in his heyday? He would have jumped in a plane and gone to Paris and kicked the crap out of the cowardly French Gendarmes!
This is, no doubt, a shocking thing to behold. The real problem, however, as I understand it, is that the government in France owns the church buildings---the bishop does not hold title to the real estate as he does here in the U.S.
As to the subject of ad orientem in the Diocese of Savannah, Georgia, have any of our Georgia folks read Fr. Douglas K. Clark's commentary article in the July 21, 2016 edition of our Diocesan newspaper, "The Southern Cross?"
In the article, (entitled "Facing God in his People") Fr. Clark recounts the Cardinal Sarah/Bishop Nichols/Holy See Press Office sequence of events wherein he writes that Card. Sarah's ad orientem invitation was "countermanded."
The article fails to point out the controversy over the correct translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal regarding the placement of altars and celebration of Mass facing the people. Fr. Clark would have us believe (as would Bishop Nichols) that the phrase "which is desirable wherever possible" applies to the "Mass can be celebrated facing the people" passage rather than to "The altar should be built separate from the wall" passage. Again, as with the recent retranslation of the Mass from Latin to English, the translation of this instruction which seems to have prevailed as unquestionably authoritative for the past 40 years may need to be re-examined. Fr. Clark would have done well to first look at this question regarding the accuracy of the translation of the GIRM on this issue (and point it out in his commentary).
In addition, while he may be correct that altars began to be attached to the apse wall between the 10th and 12th centuries, I sincerely doubt that versus apsidem (ad orientem) celebration of Mass began at that time, too. Besides, "resourcement" isn't always the best approach to things---what about babies peeing in immersion baptismal pools (or naked females being baptized privately by female "deaconesses"?). What about public confessions of private personal sins as in the early Church. Sometimes experience and slowly evolving accreted tradition can be the best way of doing things.
Reesourcement and looking to the early Church without considering what happened between then and now does not always yield the best practices for use today.
Yes, I'm waiting for a comment from Francis too - he comments on everything else but I think I'll be waiting a long time as others say, if this had been a mosque ...
Joseph Johnson,
While I am very much in favor of ad orientem worship, the repeated claim that the Latin rubric is mistranslated is just plain silly. The Holy See itself clarified over a decade ago that the rubric does indeed refer both to the altar and to versus populum worship. It seems to be Father Z who keeps stirring up this "bad translation" argument. He needs to be assigned full time to a parish so he can develop a healthy understanding of the priesthood.
"Can you imagine St. John Paul II's reaction in his heyday? He would have jumped in a plane and gone to Paris and kicked the crap out of the cowardly French Gendarmes!"
What a bunch of self-serving, revisionist clap-trap. The author of this sentence is trapped in his own un-historical delusions.
Anonymous,
Not really, you are the one with delusions and a very bad memory.John Paul II ferociously faced down the communists and threatened to lay down the papal tiara and go to Poland, if necessary, to protect his beloved Poles. The problem is left-wingers like you either do not know any history or willfully refuse to heed its lessons.
Joseph Johnson, the foremost Latinist in the Roman Catholic Church, Brother Reginald (hardly a conservative) agrees with Father Z. I'd take his word any day over some simpleton bishop trying to preserve an unsatisfactory status quo. So before spouting off, get the facts.
Dialogue,
Well, it certainly helps my feelings when you say that you are personally very much in favor of ad orientem worship. . . your posting name, "Dialogue," is very appropriate in this case.
And so I suppose that anytime a priest or bishop offers Mass from a free-standing altar ad orientem he violates the rubric that Mass be offered facing the people "which is desirable whenever possible." I'm not saying that the prevailing understanding of this rubric is incorrect--I'm just trying see how it can be read consistently with other GIRM rubric(s) which refer to the priest turning toward the people (which would seem to imply that he was facing away from them) during the Canon of the Mass as well as the long-standing liturgical tradition of the Church (which I am convinced is versus apsidem).
As for the St. Peter's and ancient Roman basilica examples that are often cited to support versus populum, what about the part in the earlier history of the Mass where the priest would say "conversi ad Dominum" (turn towards the Lord)? I have read that this refers to the people then turning towards the East (facing away from the priest) with both priest and people all facing East at that point in the Mass. If this basilican example (with the exhortation, "turn towards the Lord") were still to be followed in my home parish of St. Joseph in Waycross, Ga., the priest is already facing geographical East when he offers Mass versus populum, so at the exhortation, we would all turn to the East
(with him to our backs) and face the narthex!
I guess, strictly speaking, I am very much an advocate of versus apsidem or "liturgical East!"
All of this "turns toward the Lord" talk presumes that the Lord is here, not there, or that the Lord can be turned to "this way," but not "that way."
The Lord simply is, folks. God said it: "ehyeh ašer ehyeh." I Am Who Am, or I Am That I Am, or even I Will Be What I Will Be.
God isn't "here" or "there," to be "turned to" by facing this way or that way.
If it doesn't matter which way we face during the Mass, then why do people in the Vatican and bishops elsewhere seem so concerned that the priest *must* face the people?
Armand,
I think we all know that God isn't "here" or "there," to remind of this fact misses the point. We are talking about Supernatural Realities and the best way to reinforce/express our belief in those Realities and in HIM in a visual/spatial/finite world. I think we are talking of a kind of "sign value" or, at a minimum, a better way to help us focus our minds on something that our minds cannot fully comprehend.
If we all turn towards the Eucharist in the Monstrance at Benediction where God is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament then what is wrong with a cult (culture) of worship that continues our past traditions of that unified physical focus in the Mass while still having some of the reforms that are legitimately envisioned in SC?
By the way, TJM, I love the EF Latin Mass as well as anyone but I hope you are not referring to me as a "foremost Latinist" as I am not!
Of course all of this is symbolic and has bearing on reverence. God is everywhere but we finite human beings need symbols to direct our prayer, be it a crucifix, altar, upwards or with eyes closed.
The Liturgy East (again not necessarily geographical) is SYMBOLIC and has meaning beyond the visual!
Yes, our orientation is symbolic. The question becomes, then, why is the symbolism of "ad orientem" woship better than versus populum as a symbol of our faith...?
Or, to put it another way, what, if anything, is lacking in versus populum that is found in ad orientem?
I think that facing liturgical East does have a bearing on reverence, but not the sort of reverence that we usually discuss.
By adopting an orientation contrary to the eastern-facing liturgical orientation that has been delivered to us by the Church as it was practiced over two millennia, we lack reverence for the tradition itself and for the faith of our ancestors.
Joseph Johnson,
I am glad you love the EF. I was not referring to you as the foremost Latinist in the Church, but to Brother Reginald Foster, who is. He says Father Z is correct and the boobs at the Holy See are wrong. I am betting with Brother Reginald and Father Z. Sorry. Why would you trust agenda driven bureaucrats? They're the ones that handed us the disaster that is the OF
TJM,
Thanks for the clarification. Also thanks for the explanation about Brother Reginald and his differing interpretation of the GIRM on versus populum. If he is correct then the GIRM would not appear to contradict itself in other parts (about the priest turning around to face the people), as I have suggested. In other words, if Brother Reginald's interpretation is correct then the GIRM would consistently presume ad orientem but allows for versus populum (with no stated preference for it).
Joseph Johnson,
BINGO, although the liars at the USCCB and Vatican have been stating otherwise. The rubrics clearly contemplate ad orientem celebration, the inveterate practice of the ages. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Latin would readily see that. Ideology can be the only explanation for their ludicrous position.When I experienced an English language Mass celebrated ad orientem for the first time, I was awestruck and found a feeling of continuity with the EF.
All of this "turns toward the Lord" talk presumes that the Lord is here, not there, or that the Lord can be turned to "this way," but not "that way."
The light of the sun is everywhere, and to differing degrees, on days that are not clear, even penetrates the clouds which assemble in the firmament .
Observe the living plants plants and flowers which orient themselves toward the sun. It is to their benefit to do so since the light provides what is essential and necessary for their growth and well being. So it is that we should orient ourselves toward the Divine Sun whether at Mass or in the Adoration chapel, in order to more fully benefit from the light of His Divine grace penetrating our souls, for our spiritual health and well-being .
We also observe how plants and flowers find what is beneficial and necessary to their growth and well-being in the rain that falls upon them. The water vapor which is everywhere present in the air around them is of some benefit, but it is not sufficient in quantity to provide what is necessary for them to flourish. In some way it is true that God, even more so than the water vapor in the air around us, is present everywhere and that His presence is of benefit to our continued existence. The water vapor in the air does provide some to benefit us, but one would die of thirst if one does not go and partake of water where it is in a more concentrated form. So it is that we should go and orient ourselves to where God is more substantially present, to partake of His Divine Substance in the Holy Mass and to orient toward, and to benefit from, His Divine presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
What is this, BIO 101?
All of this "turns toward the Lord" talk presumes that the Lord is here, not there, or that the Lord can be turned to "this way," but not "that way."
The light of the sun is everywhere, and to differing degrees, on days that are not clear, even penetrates the clouds which assemble in the firmament .
Observe the living plants plants and flowers which orient themselves toward the sun. It is to their benefit to do so since the light provides what is essential and necessary for their growth and well being. So it is that we should orient ourselves toward the Divine Sun whether at Mass or in the Adoration chapel, in order to more fully benefit from the light of His Divine grace penetrating our souls, for our spiritual health and well-being .
We also observe how plants and flowers find what is beneficial and necessary to their growth and well-being in the rain that falls upon them. The water vapor which is everywhere present in the air around them is of some benefit, but it is not sufficient in quantity to provide what is necessary for them to flourish. In some way it is true that God, even more so than the water vapor in the air around us, is present everywhere and that His presence is of benefit to our continued existence. The water vapor in the air does provide some to benefit us, but one would die of thirst if one does not go and partake of water where it is in a more concentrated form. So it is that we should go and orient ourselves to where God is more substantially present, to partake of His Divine Substance in the Holy Mass and to orient toward, and to benefit from, His Divine presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
My comment @ 11:10 AM and at August 5, 2016 at 6:44 PM (which I inadvertently posted as Anonymous) is about my perspective on worship, adoration and orientation.
Billy the Kid-I did get a laugh out of your comment though.
Post a Comment