This is a very orthodox and historical account of what Sacrosanctum Concilium taught and what then actually happened after Vatican II in the development of implementing what Pope Paul VI’s committee on reforming the liturgy developed, Consilium. It is a must read document, even if you disagree with this, that or the other. Press the title for the complete article, but I have a money byte quote beneath the title:
The Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Money byte: Facing Together—Facing Christ
One other liturgical development that took place after Vatican II deserves discussion in its own right: the placement of the altar with the priest facing the people. Although this change was not anticipated by the Council, once it occurred it was fully embraced by the magisterium. Although either orientation is permitted, we hold that the celebration of the liturgy with the priest facing the faithful is pastorally and theologically more congruent with the reality of the liturgy as “an action of Christ the Priest and of his Body, which is the Church . . . a sacred action surpassing all others” (SC §7).[12] Unfortunately, as will be discussed below, many priests took this innovation as an opportunity to wreak havoc in the sanctuary. Here we enumerate some of the pastoral and theological advantages of the priest and people facing one another.
Sacrosanctum Concilium did not address either the position of the altar in the sanctuary nor whether the priest should face the congregation. Nonetheless, once free-standing altars were introduced, it seemed logical that the priest should face the people for the very reason that the Council promoted the liturgical reform—the full participation of the faithful in the liturgy. Thus the 1970 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) prescribed that a church “should have a fixed and dedicated altar, freestanding, away from any wall, so that the priest can walk around it and can celebrate facing the people. It should be in a position such that the entire congregation will naturally focus their attention on it” (262). Likewise the revised 2002 GIRM states: “The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible" (229). Unlike altars prior to Vatican II, which were attached to a wall, the altar now is to be “freestanding” in order for the priest to face the people during the Mass. It is to be positioned such that it can be the focus of both the priest’s and the people’s singular attention. On that altar, in communion with Christ the great high priest, the priest and people together celebrate and offer the one saving sacrifice of the Mass
18 comments:
The single greatest Liturgical failing of the Post Concilliar era .Reducing the Holy Mass to a "community banquet"-a Protestant meal,rather than the Sacrifice of the Cross on the Altar.Until this is fixed; I.e. catechesis; "how we pray is what we believe", we will be mired in this "doublespeak "
Yet the “reforms” and Novus Ordo have been abject failures. It was a top down “reform” neither desired nor asked for. Hubris on steroids by so-called experts
The mass, from the time it was conceived, has been a reenactment of the sacrifice of Calvary AND a community meal. Both/and, not either/or. Not this more than that less, but both, simultaneously together, reflecting the hypostatic union.
And the Novus Ordo, from the time it was conceived, has been a flop.
"Traditional" Catholics have claimed that the liturgical reforms were unpopular amongst the laity...had been imposed from the top down...that the Faithful had been happy with the overall state of Western Church liturgy, which such influential Churchmen of that time as Father Joseph Ratzinger had insisted was in dreadful condition.
But as the article posted by Father McDonald noted, the reforms had proved very popular amongst the Faithful...and most important, had been approved by the Church's never-failing Magisterium.
The vernacularization of the Mass is chief among the tremendously popular reforms embraced by the overwhelming amount of Western Catholics.
From the article:
The Language of the People
"Without the vernacular, the active, vocal, intelligible participation of the faithful would have been impossible — at least for the vast majority.
"As we have seen, the Council Fathers desired that the Latin language be preserved, especially in the people’s responses, although they readily acknowledged that the vernacular was frequently advantageous to the people.
"What they did not anticipate was the enthusiasm with which the vernacular was accepted by clergy and laity alike. Bishops’ conferences around the world voted to expand the use of the vernacular and requested and received permission to do so from Rome.
"The vox populi had spoken and had been affirmed by the Church — vernacular it would be."
The article noted that the "Church’s magisterium, in the persons of Paul VI and John Paul II, confirmed these developments..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The initial changes in the Mass (and I have a post on the 1965 Missal) were conservative and mostly uncontroversial. People, for the most part, enjoyed a partial English Tridentine Mass. They liked the Mass facing the people, especially seeing what the priest was doing with the more complicated rubrics (sign language) of the Roman Canon. What many did not like in 1966 or so was the priest eating and drinking Holy Communion in front of them—that seemed vulgar and many people voiced concerned about it. Normally, you would not enter a dining room in America and start eating before everyone else. You wait until everyone receives their plated food and then begin eating together.
The problems began to develop when the Mass became sloppy and casual, reverence was redefined, Communion in the hand and Eucharistic ministers. Girls serving the altar as servers, etc. These trends were applauded and accepted by many but in a polarizing way, a polarization not seen in pre-Vatican II times.
Mark, only 5% to 25% of people attend Mass today, the mess the Mass became within five years of Vatican II has much to do with it and also the logical conclusion of change. When people like change and others don’t, that is polarizing and when you think things can’t change, like doctrine, and then you have a pope saying, well, don’t be so rigid about doctrine, then all things are possible for those who love constant change and long for a different Church, but an equal number don’t. And that polarization will lead to fewer practicing Catholics over this coming generation and the demise of the Church although a remnant will remain.
Father McDonald,
That was a kind response to an individual who is mpervious to facts.
I recall suggesting to my pastor in early 1965, "Father, why not have one Mass on Sunday with no changes, and see how things go?" He told me, "the bishop won't allow that." Just think of how things might have turned out if the Church had listened "ex ore infantium" With peaceful co-existence, either the reforms would have been gradually accepted or they would not have been. There certainly would have been less polarization. I think the Anglican Church took this approach with their Sunday liturgies.
"...the mess the Mass became within five years of Vatican II has much to do with it..."
The is the constant, unsubstantiated claim you and others love making. It makes you feel superior, I suppose, to wrap up the multiple, complex struggles in our culture and our Church in a simplistic, unnuanced understanding with an equally simplistic prescription for what our response should be.
"Save the liturgy, save the world" thinking is inadequate, not to mention presumptuous.
Fr K,
Your comments have little credibility. Given your age, you could not have experienced what Father McDonald and I did. You are a Liturgy Failure Denier! The stats tell it all. Enjoy your delusions including, but not limited to, that abortion is “healthcare!”
The linked article states:
Likewise the revised 2002 GIRM states: “The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible" (229).
This includes an embarrassing mistake, which -- if anyone wants to research, you can easily do so. Namely, that in the original Latin text, the phrase, "which is desirable wherever possible," does not refer to celebrating Mass "facing the people," but rather, it refers to the possibility of "walk[ing] around it easily." The importance of clarity -- and the problem of repeating this mistake -- is great: because this mistake is trotted out repeatedly to imply the GIRM requires Mass facing the people, when in fact, the GIRM is endorsing a free standing altar.
Others have written about this elsewhere, and in their reporting, they cite clarifcation from Rome on this very point, that the Latin text does not support how the English translation is being cited here.
Fr Fox,
The mistranslation achieves Father Talk Show Host’s desire to be the center of attention
TJM,
In all fairness, Fr. K HAS denounced abortion as an evil in his postings here. The problem lies more as to his apparent belief of where that evil fits in to the overall responsibility of voters. I could say more, but I'll just leave it at that.
Jerome, It is obvious to readers here that TJM has zero interest in fairness.
If you would care to show me where the Church has clearly taught where the evil of abortion "fits into the overall responsibility of voters," I would be glad to read it.
Until then, I will operate on the guidance given by the CDF a la Card. Ratzinger and the USCCB in "Faithful Citizenship."
Faithful Citizenship has no canonical authority or binding upon the consciences of the Catholic faithful. None.
What is binding are the five intrinsically evil moral issues known as:
Abortion
Euthanasia
Embryonic/stem cell research
So called same-sex "marriage"
Human cloning
http://www.sacredheart-alturas.org/faqnonnegotiables.html
All of those are part of the party platform called democrat.
Kev -, The Church, because it respects the conscience of the voter, cannot - as in does not have the authority/capacity to - bind the conscience of a voter regarding his/her choice to vote for or against a particular candidate.
Faithful Citizenship, whether you like it or not, is the authoritative voice of the conference of bishops in forming consciences for voting. It closely echoes the guidance given by then Cardinal Ratzinger when he was head of the CDF.
Fr K,
Pray tell us what proportionate issues supersede abortion? Most of us are sick of lying, statist priests, who are political operatives. Why not address Archbishop Chaput’s statement on fake Catholic Biden? Maybe you should read about Bishop Galen, a real man
Jerome,
Actually pervert McCarrick (whom Fr K is aligned to politically) lied about Cardinal Ratzinger’s position. Typical, just like abortion is “healthcare.”
Ratzinger's guidance is available for anyone to read, as I have, without any filter. The USCCB's "Faithful Citizenship" echoes the CDF statement.
Post a Comment