Parris Island Marine Corps Base’s one chapel, the left photo for the Protestant Lord’s Supper and the right photo for the Catholic Modern Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, using the early Church’s ancient practice of ad orientem:
Anthony on another post made this insightful comment:
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.
My affirming comments:
When I first experienced Versus Populum with the 1965 Roman Missal around 1966, my reaction and the reaction of many parishioners in my parish was that it seemed like we were at the Last Supper with Jesus and His Apostles.
As the 1960's turned to the 1970's, progressive spirit of Vatican II theologians declared that we should emphasize the Meal aspect of the Mass now considering that Trent overemphasized the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and sacralized the priest too much in making him one who offers sacrifice rather than an animator of the community at their convivial Last Supper Meal. Thus the priest came to be known as the presider rather than the priest-celebrant. And minister was probably a better name for the priest.
These liturgical same theologians declared that Transubstantiation was overemphasized in the post Trent era and that any and all things pre-Vatican II needed to be updated according the spirit of Vatican II. The presence of Jesus could be experienced in a variety of equal ways, the Eucharistic Bread being only one vehicle to experiencing Christ.
And the use of the term Mass and certainly the use of the term the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should give way to the term Eucharist or Liturgy. That is what Vatican II wanted.
But very early on, and while still a lay teenager, I wasn't buying it. What I did not buy in particular was the Mass as a festive Meal. This Italian boy knew what a meal was and a disc of Bread a meal did not make! In fact, it can't even be called an antipasto or even a "sample"!
Food? Or yes. Jesus Christ truly present under the Form of Bread is Food for the soul and our journey or pilgrimage to heaven.
I also came to the dogmatic conclusion that the Mass was not a re-presentation of Holy Thursday’s Last Supper but rather the re-presentation of Good Friday’s One Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ, but in an “unbloody” way, an eternal and glorified way through the power of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ crucified and Risen and sending us His Holy Spirit. That Sacrifice captured in time in the Holy Mass is eternal and available at all times and places until Jesus Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.
Holy Thursday was a true meal with other food and drink, it was only the bread and wine that Jesus changed into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity that Jesus emphasized as the means by which we would remember not a convivial meal, but rather His Suffering and Death on Good Friday, His one Sacrifice as well as His Glorious Resurrection. The Mass is not a meal about ordinary bread and wine, it is a Sacrifice by which we receive the Crucified, Risen and Glorified Lord Jesus Christ as Food for soul on our journey to heaven.
But after about 1,900 years, in 1969, ad orientem all but disappeared from the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Thanks be to God the Eastern Rites and their schismatic brothers and sisters maintained the ancient custom of ad orientem.
By looking at the Modern Mass and a Protestant Communion Service, one would think that the Latin Rite prefers the Protestant theology of "the Lord's Supper" rather than the Catholic theology of the pre-Vatican II Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite even in the post-Vatican II age. What a pity.
Restore the Ad Orientem to the Latin Rite for the Liturgy of the Eucharist just like Pope Francis approved the restoration of ad orientem to the Syro-Malabar Rite. Pope Francis understood that ad orientem is necessary to dispel heterodox views concerning the Mass and Real Presence of Christ.
Thank you very much!
2 comments:
I am on board with Fathers McDonald, as well as Anthony, in regard to the spiritual benefits associated with ad orientem liturgy.
Father Kavanaugh, via a different thread, offered solid points in regard to versus populum worship. Father's argument — that Holy Mass may be offered in reverent, uplifting fashion via versus populum — is, I believe, valid.
Nevertheless, I believe more strongly in ad orientem worship. But the important question is whether such is the case in regard to Pope Leo XIV?
His Holiness, should he desire publicly, could promote ad orientem in powerful fashion.
But I have found, for example, among leading trads, such as Michael Matt (The Remnant), the belief that Pope Leo XIV has z-e-r-o interest in the promotion of so-called "traditional" Latin Church worship.
Example: Just a few days ago from Michael Matt:
"Vatican Tells OBEDIENT Traditionalists to Pound Sand
The Vatican is DONE playing. In this week's Underground: Pope Leo completely ignores some thirty-five traditionalist groups from all over the world who, for nine months, have been requesting an audience with the pope."
=======
In regard to Pope Leo XIV's liturgical vision for the (Latin Church):
His Holiness has favored clearly Pope Francis' approach to liturgy. However, as Father McDonald noted, Pope Francis did not oppose ad orientem.
But as is the case with each of his Vatican II Era predecessors, Pope Francis did not promote within the Latin Church the widespread return to ad orientem worship.
In turn, I have not discerned from Pope Leo XIV any desire of his to promote the widespread return ad orientem worship to the Latin Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I have found the following mysterious:
Our Vatican II Era Popes have been diligent in having promoted traditional Eastern Catholic liturgical practices — ad orientem included.
However, in regard, for example, to ad orientem, that has not been the case as it concerns the Latin Church.
Example:
1996 A.D. In regard to ad orientem, Rome directed the following to Eastern Catholic Churches:
"Such practice...is thus of profound value and should be safeguarded."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment