For the 25th Sunday of Time, I celebrated my first two Masses (8:30 and 10:30) at the Parris Island Marine Corps Base. I will do so through October as they await a new Catholic Chaplain assigned by the Archbishop of the Military Archdiocese.
The 8:30 Mass was in a humongous multi-purpose building and there were about 1,000 Marines who are in various stages of boot camp, some as young as 17 years old! The altar was set up ad orientem. Only about 300 of the 1,000 received Holy Communion.
I distributed along with one Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The set up for distribution was great and not like any thing I had ever done in the Modern Mass.
As I mentioned, the building is humongous with a great amount of space behind the altar all three hundred lined up rectangularly the full, very long width of the building half on one side of the altar and the other half on the other side. They formed two lines on each side but facing each other. Then I, on my side, and the EMHC on the other side, went to each recruit rather than them coming to us in two lines. Quite a few knelt for Holy Communion but others received standing. There was a combination of receiving on the tongue or the hand. But since I and the Communion Minister were doing the processing to each communicant, it was all very reverent and many after receiving knelt of the floor in thanksgiving before returning to their seats.
AND YES, WITH THE COMMUNION MINISTERS DOING THE PROCESSING, IT ALL WENT VERY QUICKLY
The 10:30 AM Mass in the chapel was ad orientem and Holy Communion distributed to Communicants kneeling at the altar railing.
This should be the norm, thank you very much!
27 comments:
There are folks here — one, anyway — who would insist that the Children of God who worshipped via the "Novus Bogus" that Father McDonald had offered today experienced a garbage, empty — speaking spiritually — third-rate Mass, if even that.
But good luck attempting to elicit that sentiment from today's communicants/worshipers at the holy Mass in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald,
Here is a link to a wonderful movie made in 1959 with Roger Moore and Carol Baker before Vatican Disaster II when even Hollywood respected the Catholic Church. The movie concludes with Mozart's Ave Verum . I rest may case that Vatican II was as disastrous for the Church as Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses. Pope Leo ignores movies like these to his peril. Faithful Catholics have had it with the perverts running the Church the last 60 years. We're mad as Hell and we are not going to take it any more.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+miracle+1959+film&FORM=QSRE2
https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+miracle+1959+film&FORM=QSRE2
When you see ,movies like The Miracle, The Bell's of St. Mary's, Going My Way and The Cardinal, you see how much we have lost and have been lied to. Simpletons who post here about the Novus Bogus need to join a fake Church.
While some will insist that with versus populum the priest and people are still directed in their heart to God, the undeniable truth is that visually ad orientem communicates this better. And while I have heard many defenses of versum populum as just as good as ad orientem I have heard no explanation of why the latter should be banned.
Versus populum was first introduced by Martin Luther to de-emphsize the Mass as sacrifice and reduce it to a communal meal. The use of it in the new Mass, which is not required by the new missal, has had the same effect, whether intended or not.
So, the day after the Ascension, when the Apostles gathered to celebrate the eucharist, it was ad orientem? Or when Justin Martyr celebrated the eucharist around 150 CE, it was ad orientem? One knows better and only a fool or a dishonest person would say otherwise.
By the 400's the ad orientem orientation had been adopted, but of course that comes after 300 years or versus populum.
And, of course, that was 1200 or 1300 years BEFORE Martin Luther did his thing. Oddly enough, belief in the mass as a sacrifice originated in versus populum celebrations...
Your ignorance of liturgical history is showing! But alas….
what is the earliest date for the catholic mass celebrated ad orientem?
The earliest evidence of the Catholic Mass celebrated ad orientem dates back to the early 200s, specifically in the house church at Dura-Europos in Syria, where the altar was positioned facing East. This practice was common in the early Christian community and continued for centuries until changes were made in the 20th century.
Defenders of the Catholic Faith
Historical Context of Ad Orientem Worship
Ad orientem worship has deep historical roots in the Catholic tradition.
Early Christian Practices — The house church at Dura-Europos, dating from the early 200s, featured an altar facing East, indicating early adoption of ad orientem worship.
Liturgical Evolution — The shift to facing the congregation (versus populum) began in the 1960s, marking a significant change in liturgical practice that contrasted with earlier traditions.
Cardinal Sarah's Encouragement — In 2016, Cardinal Robert Sarah encouraged a return to ad orientem worship, highlighting its historical significance and spiritual depth.
Catholic World Report
Why bother responding to K of the Dwindling Parish? It's like responding to MT.
The idea that ad orientem was a late development—an idea that was popular when we were in the seminary—is now generally discounted by historians. It was practiced by the early church.
The question, however, is not what was the original orientation but which better communicates a sacrifice offered to the Father and which can reduce the Mass to being merely a meal. Whatever are your preferences, versus populum has the danger of the latter. Why the need to change to versus populum? Furthermore, what is the objection to an orientation that has been practiced for well over a thousand years and is still authorized by the Church?
I'm wonderding why Fr. Kavanaugh uses the words, "150 C.E."? He's a priest writing on a Catholic site. Christians say A.D., Year of Our Lord, not Common Era. Political correctness gone bonkers. Never be ashamed of Jesus Our Lord.
As our Brothers and Sisters, Early Christian, went to the 'rooms' where 'eucharist' was to be offered by the 'bishop' - facing the people we suppose. I have no problem supposing this is the case - even though there is little or no supporting evidence. As the Christian community grew in the face of persecution and more and more packed into those 'rooms': the space became more overcrowded - the solution, push the dining table against the wall thereby taking up less needed space. It was a practical necessity. Common sense tells us how and why? Common sense though a rare commodity.
Antiquarianism isn't a good reason.
St. Justin Martyr wasn't a priest.
The fact that the praxis of every rite and every church had the priest facing East should resolve the question. The fact that it is even a question is ridiculous.
I'm not sure about that explanation. When in history did altars become positioned against walls? It seems like evidence points to altars being freestanding for around 1,000 years.
There is no way ad orientem.was a later development. Every other eastern religion, even today worship Ad Orientum (Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims), and even copitics. So it would have been normal for the early fathers to offer the sacrifice Ad Orientum. I am from Asia. So to me Ad Orientum is the way to worship god. Versus populum was a practice imposed by the western church.
Indeed, even when the altar was free standing and placed at the western end of the church there is strong evidence that the whole congregation would turn towards the east together, with the priest and altar at the bottom of a U, in offering the sacrifice.
This book is excellent on the topic. With an excellent endorsement by Cardinal Ratzinger.
https://www.amazon.com/Reform-Roman-Liturgy-Problems-Background/dp/0912141050/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=5LT2ABEXFBDO&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.KicPQFGi0ttfgHm7vrhz_mpAoyI-T88IkDsD5ZVJ1xCjfNaEb5pSopRmisvirhYZR9dhxoS9nz7n_xRmSBwv3rVp_zKqjWHJ0fRYfKXXRGqApUJKdpY_mIFWeQDCy5E5D_ZT2xja93HdKPFYu0c311X9-EUrM9tg5RjJoRRnG8EJ899rVhxGATgYDOa9aFVU9YSGYg1ub3G6rhwGajOmeQ.UWJmfeEkpnzeAU0ORPAQFGqOngPDhfD4af24JtYsaPE&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+reform+of+the+roman+liturgy&qid=1790100091&sprefix=the+reform+of+the+%2Caps%2C170&sr=8-1
Daniel - "C.E." has nothing to do with 1. the fact that I am a priest or 2. being ashamed of Jesus Christ or 3. the denomination of this website or 4. political correctness.
Men don't wear spats, bustles under ladies' dresses disappeared over a hundred years ago, and those of us who instinctively use two spaces after a period when typing are called "throw-backs."
You can stomp your feet and make ALL the unfounded accusations you want, but "CE" for Common Era and "BCE" for Before the Common Era" is becoming standard usage for a variety of perfectly acceptable reasons.
If you want to wear spats and make your wife wear a bustle, have at it!
No, they are not acceptable reasons. CE and BCE are attempts to erase the influence of Christianity on society. I do not know about you, but I will not go along with it. Just because something is new does not make it better.
What is a good reason to not use Anno Domini to honor our Lord and recognize His real effect on history in favor of the nebulous "common era"? What event made it the "common era"?
Anthony - Methinks you see nefarious intent in everything that does not suit your preferences. Versus populum is meant to destroy belief in the mass as a true sacrifice... No, it's not. BCE and CE are attempts to erase the influence of Christianity... No, it's not. You are being victimized by bishops who restrict the TLM. No, you're not.
These are persecutory delusions. And they can rise to the level of psychosis.
Fr. Kavanaugh, the intent of Luther in introducing versus populum as indeed to destroy the belief in the Mass as a sacrifice and reduce it to a meal. I did not posit that it was the intention with the introduction of it in the new Mass, only that it was the result however unintended.
If you do not think that BCE an CE, the elimination of any reference to Christ, were introduced to reduce the influence of Christianity then you are sadly mistaken.
And you still have not given a reason why ad orientem, which is still authorized by the new missal, should be forbidden. Why the insistence on ad orientem?
Anthony - The mass is BOTH sacrifice and sacred meal at the same time. "Sacrifice" and "Sacred Banquet" are BOTH used to describe the mass in the Catechism.
1323: "...a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed..."
1382 "The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood."
1402 "In an ancient prayer the Church acclaims the mystery of the Eucharist: "O sacred banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed,..."
Luther believed it was a sacred meal, not the equivalent of some Sunday afternoon dinner at grandma's or a cookout with buddies after the game.
Catholic are smart enough to know that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, whatever way the priest faces. The word "sacrifice" appears more than 300 times in the Roman Missal.
Only a person who suffers persecutory delusions sees nefarious intent in things that do not suit his preferences.
If the congregation does not desire ad orientem, why force it upon them?
Fr. Kavanaugh, the Mass is indeed a meal but it is a sacrificial meal. This is what Luther wanted to deny with his introduction of versus populum. For him it was merely a communal meal among believers in the model of the Last Supper. And no, Catholics are unfortunately not smart enough to know that the Mass is a sacrifice when the signs of that have been stripped from the liturgy. Only around 20% of those who go to the new Mass recognize that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
Again you have not presented any reason to forbid ad orientem, which is allowed in the new Mass. And do not hide behind "the congregation does not desire it." I would venture that most in the congregation do not care one way or the other and would welcome it if were explained why. And if it should not be forced upon the, why was versus populum forced upon them. There was no demand for it by the laity before it was introduced. So I ask you, why are you opposed to it?
Father Anthony,
Logic is not K of the Dwindling Parish's strong suit.
I found it fascinating in the surveys taken in the first few years after the Council that there was a strong desire to retain an all Latin Mass by about 40% of those polled. That is very telling. They were not some insignificant minority or fringe group. That should have raised red flags right there, but our "shepherd's" ignored them and hence, this may be one clue as to why our churches eventually emptied out. And then look to France where today 55% of young priests can celebrate the TLM. I would say the Novus Bogus is in serious trouble in France once those young men obtain power.
Anthony - Lutgher did not believe the eucharist was "merely a communal meal among believers on the model of the last supper." He did believe in the Real Presence, so this was not a bunch of like-minded folks meeting up at the Cracker Barrel for the early bird senior special.
Often comparisons are made between was "everyone once believed" and what Some% of Catholic now believe. I'd like to see the data from the 1940's or the 1840's or the 1740's that backs up that claim. Also, the Family Feud-style "survey says" can also be highly suspect, even when a highly reputable source is involved. You may recall that Pew Research released survey results a few years back that, they said, showed only one-third of Catholic believe it is the Body and Blood of Jesus. The PEW survey was based on 1,835 Catholics in a total sample population of 10,971.
The Disciple Maker Index of the Catholic Leadership Institute found very different results with a much broader survey base.
"When asked about doctrines of the faith, seventy-two percent of the DMI respondents strongly agreed with the statement “I personally believe the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Another nineteen percent agreed with that statement. That’s almost 120,000 Catholics claiming they do agree with what the Church teaches, compared to the 569 respondents highlighted in the PEW headline."
Lastly, the notion that changing the direction the priest faces brought about the monumental loss of faith is ludicrous. Only a fool or a dishonest person would make such a claim. Might there be, say, socio-cultural changes that have also had significant impact on what Catholic believe?
Anthony - I will poll the 7:30 mass attendees in the coming weeks about their preferences. They're the most "steady" crowd and I suspect the crowd with the highest average age. I think they will care very much.
Why was Latin forced upon the Church some 1700 years ago? Did anyone ask for that? Was there a demand? Why do you not decry that grace injustice?
Father Kavanaugh, Luther did not believe that the Mass was a sacrifice and that is the point. That is why he introduced versus populum. Whether intended or not, versus populum gives the impression that the Mass is primarily a meal, albeit with the Body and Blood of Christ, shared among the gathered faithful. Indeed, this is what many liturgists have pushed.
You have still not expressed any rational for forbidding ad orientem. Even if there is no difference between them, why insist on versus populum?
You want to see data from the past? Even though we do not have scientific surveys, we do have other data: higher rates of Mass attendance, higher rates of religious vocations, higher rates of the retention of the faith between generations, etc. Nor do we need just look at the past. We can see the same when comparing Novus Ordo parishes with TLM parishes. The evidence is there; you just do not want to see it.
I will not argue that changing the orientation of the priest was the sole cause but it was significant. It changes the whole orientation and experience of the Mass. If it is not so important, then why make the change in the first place? And why oppose returning to ad orientem?
Do you really believe that the massive changes in the liturgy had no effect? Did socio-cultural changes also have an effect? But this does not mean that the changes in the liturgy did not also have an effect or that they did not strengthen the socio-cultural changes at the time.
Post a Comment