The following comes from a Nov. 1 blog posting in the Daily Telegraph (U.K.).
And he mystifies us again…
It seems that on Thursday morning Pope Francis celebrated Mass ad orientem at the tomb of John Paul II. For those not hip with the Catholic jargon, this means that he said Mass facing away from the people and towards the altar/God. The practice is growing in popularity in many Roman Catholic parishes but remains highly controversial. For conservatives it represents a tentative return to the beauty of the Old Rite. For liberals, the act of turning one’s back on the people represents everything bad about the authoritarian, arcane bad old days of the pre-Kumbaya era. What next? Sermons about the devil?!
In fact, Francis only celebrated ad orientem because he had no choice – the altar at the tomb is pushed against a wall and it’s impossible to stand behind it. But as some commentators have noted, whenever John Paul II celebrated ad orientem he insisted that photographers only capture him during the moments in the liturgy when he had to face the people. Francis, by contrast, has been photographed showing his back to the camera.
The likeliest interpretation of this isn’t that Francis is a liturgical conservative but rather that he just doesn’t care about the protocol sensitivities of either trads or liberals. We have a Pope who, for better and worse, isn’t that bothered about liturgy and is far more focused on evangelism and charity.
That’s bad in the sense that it means traditionalists have lost a champion in the Vatican (Benedict was a fairly reliable friend) but good in the sense that the liturgy is likely to become de-politicised. Face the people, don’t face the people – all that matters is doctrinal orthodoxy and conducting the Mass in the right spirit.
Of course, that won’t stop some of the guitar strumming liberals in the Church from getting very excited about this. They’ve been working darn hard for decades to introduce clown shoes and puppets to the Mass and they won’t go down without a fight. Or at least the angry shake of a tambourine…
To read the original posting, click here.
I much prefer the phrasing that the priest is facing THE SAME WAY AS THE CONGREGATION, rather than facing away from them, since that’s actually the point. “Facing away” implies that he’s ignoring the people or “dissing” them, but that sort of begs the question of why he’s there if the people aren’t the reason.
I agree 100% with that phrasing. The priest doesn’t “have his back to the people” any more than the people in the front row have their back to the rest of the congregation. When the priest says mass ad orientem he is expressing the theological reality of what the priest is doing during the mass. The priest gathers the prayers and sacrifices of the congregation and offers them up to the Father, remembering that the mass is a prayer to God, not to the people. That’s why he turns around to face the people whenever he is saying something directly to them, and then turns to face the Tabernacle with the people when he is talking to God.
Thank you Fr. Matthew. This is absolutely correct because the Priest is the person Our Dear Lord has chosen to lead His people back to Him. The Tabernacle, the Priest, the people. I am in love with the Holy Eucharist. I am in love with the Mass. Thank you Fr. Matthew for your blessed vocation. I promise to continue praying for you and all Priests and Religious everyday. I am thankful you answered The Call of our Lord for the continued salvation of souls, a tremendous responsibility. Whomever reads this……please join me in prayers. Peace, Angelfire
The priest is offering the Mass FOR the people, no matter which way he is facing. It is likely a misunderstanding, and has obviously been deepened after so long a practice of facing the people, that the priest appears to be offering Mass TO the people. That part is incorrect. The people are NOT the point, as you have suggested. Every priest is bound to offer his Mass daily, whether anyone is there or not, it is not something he cannot do. He is bound to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, so, do a little homework. The priest is a man who has dedicated his life to the Holy Eucharist, that is his primary purpose, to offer Mass, to protect the Holy Eucharist, to reverence It, etc.. The rest of it is just window dressing.
Well said, Life Lady:
“It is likely a misunderstanding, and has obviously been deepened after so long a practice of facing the people, that the priest appears to be offering Mass TO the people.”
You’ve just outlined the reality of ‘Lex orandi lex credendi.’ And yet there will be myriad Anonymous posters who will insist that if there is no ‘law’ against something then it is perfectly admissible. Your suggestion that one ‘do some homework’ will be streamlined – much like Common Core – to mean drill night and day: Faith defined means Obedience. Lesson over.
God give us more like Fr. Matthew who see the wisdom in expressing theological reality without having to be told to do so.
He is also saying it for himself. He has not yet made it to heaven.
I do want to clarify one point here in regards to Life Lady. The priest is technically not bound to offer mass each day. The vow that we make at ordination is to pray the Liturgy of the Hours every day. We do not make a vow to pray the mass each day. We do have the obligation to provide mass for the people but if, for example, a priest were on vacation he wouldn’t be bound by a promise to offer mass. Obviously we are obligated to say/attend mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. Canon Law 904 (in case you want to see where I got this from) “earnestly recommends” daily mass for priests, but does not require it.
On the other hand, I personally feel like it is a grave mistake (and danger) for a priest to not offer mass each and every day. The Eucharist is the source and summit of everything we believe, and it is one of the primary sources of the grace necessary to remain faithful to Christ. That’s why the Church strongly encourages her priests and the lay faithful to attend even daily mass.
The Liturgy of the Hours, the most beautiful and amazing Prayer of the Church. It is also a prayer online. Check out Divine Office.com. It also has audio. Peace, angelfire
Thank you Father Matthew. The priest is leading the flock to God. Amen!
Jim-before you gt all indignant, perhaps read up a bit. The priest AND the people form one body, an image of the body of Christ. The priest acts in persons Christi capitis (the head) and the people are the members. TOGETHER they address the Father. So indeed, prayer is for the people, but it is a participation in the dialogue between Father and Son. So to have the priest talking to the people is like the head talking to the belly. ONE body faces in ONE direction, namely, toward God. Since the Church permits Mass versus populum, or toward the people, we have to accept it. But the danger is that people might think the priest is saying Mass TO the people, and not to God. This is the high dignity of the laity, they get to join in the prayers of the priest as members of the Body of Christ. To reduce Mass to simply something said to the people is actually to reduce their dignity and undo the nature of the liturgy itself.
Joe W. Have you ever seen pictures of Padre Pio saying Mass? Who was Padre Pio facing in such utter devotion? Not himself, not the people. Where was the attention of the people? We focus on what the Priest focuses on. The Priest was never meant to be the center of the Mass. Christ is the Center of the Mass. For one thousand nine hundred and sixty years, the Mass was conducted this way. And then, Vatican II. How’s it been working for us so far?
Mr Kearney, it is not true that for one thousand nine hundred and sixty years the Mass was conducted with the priest facing away from the people. Ad orientem means facing east, St. Peters in Rome is an example where the priest always has faced the people. It really wasn’t until the 9th century that the practice of facing away became commonplace and it was never a requirement and never universal.
No, the Mass is not about you. It is not about me. It is FOR us. Our devotion is to OUR LORD. Our attention is to be on OUR LORD. We are ALL supposed to be facing the Lord. Jesus is the center of the Mass. His Eucharistic Presence. His sacrifice on the Cross. His breaking His body for us to consume. It is time we get away from this egocentric me me me.
“Ad orientem”, facing East or to the East, means that the priest with the people are facing Christ, the SUN of God, on the crucifix and in the Tabernacle. Pope Benedict XVL, explained it beautifully in his book on the liturgy as Cardinal Radzinger. Most all the early Christian churches actually had the altar on the Eastern side of the Church to remind Christians that Jesus Christ was the Rising Sun, the Light of the World.
Metaphorically, of course.
Well he could have set up the “table” in front of the altar but, there was no room for it, so Bergoglio had no choice but to say Holy Mass ad orientem. Have not fear he still is a 100% Vatican II man, the TLM is not coming to St. Peters anytime soon.
Janek it’s Pope Francis…..can you at least show some respect. Thank you. Your comments sounded condescending. How easy to judge our Pope…it can cause us to be disappointed. How can we judge him just by a simple article as this….
Pray for our Pope and our church…..and if you don’t agree with Him, at least address him as what is due him, He is our Pope and we can learn from being meek, a heart full of humility, still addressing our Pope with respect…..not letting pride take away our true charity in what we want to convey especially on what concerns us. It can help us be virtuous…. I respect Janek for her opinion and it was OK for her to state her heartfelt concerns but it doesn’t help her cause because she is prideful to not accept the fact that this is still our Pope. Pope Francis not Bergoglio…..
Thank you, Abeca!
Janek, you are starting to remind me of Martin Luther who went from being pious to being horribly disrespectful toward the Holy Father when Luther didn’t agree with something.
I once attended Mass in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Jerusalem) and the celebrant was not even visible to us, down in a tiny space where the altar was. Whether he was facing east or west was of no importance to us: we were happy to be part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Open your eyes to the huge variety of ways in which Holy Mother Church celebrates Mass (Anglican Rite, Tridentine, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, etc.) and perhaps you will become less annoying in imagining that there is only ONE TRUE WAY to worship God. When Ireland was under English oppression, the faithful celebrated Mass out on some hill, with no tabernacle, and no worry about it.
…and yet Martin Luther and his reform is now the focus of an upcoming Vatican shindig, Bob. So I guess his disrespecting the pope of his day is now okay.
Open your eyes, Bob, to your own inconsistency. You want to hop on board the respect the Pope bandwagon (which we should do) while disrespecting the valid points of rampant abuses, rotten fruit of the new order, and wise proclamations of former – dare I say it – POPES! (There have been more Popes than just the current one.)
As to Jerusalem, I’d venture to say that you and whoever else attended mass in the Holy Sepulchre were pleased to be there – at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. A daily/weekly dose of not seeing diddly would wear down a body’s faith. We are human after all.
Your mention of Ireland under English oppression is way off base too. After all, if nobody worried about the particulars of worship, the Irish would have just kept to the hills. They went back to the fullness of celebration, Bob, once the oppression was lifted. I pray the same will be said of Holy Mother Church once the oppression of minimalist, modern, low-ball, and meatless is lifted.
Well said Bob. Dunno if you are in Ireland though I am myself.
I am not a theologian and this may be heretical of me – but I am sure deeply Irish – Celtic. When I attend Mass, daily for the most part, we the people are central to all of it. We as people with our joys and sufferings – and with the entire Creation ‘in groaning for the day of deliverance’ are offered through, with and in Christ to the Father. Everything is turned to the good for those loving God.
Who loves God more perfectly than the Only Begotten and in and through that Love – all of us, with everything we are and are not, united with all the Creation – being made the good God intended – in and through that offering, Sacrifice – Mass – be it in a chapel or the fields around here they used to have offer on the Mass Rock.
What is Communion if not a coming together of the people with their Creator – God the Father, through with and in Christ.
These people with their obsessions with ‘rubrics’ display more, if anything, lack of real faith which lives in and through the heart – not the head.
P
Janek, thank you. You said it all.
Barbara what are you thankful for? Her refusal to address our Pope in his name or the other stuff? Like I said before it’s OK for her to have concerns and express them as long as they are not against our faith, but I was hoping that she would make her argument even better by showing respect to our current Pope and addressing him…….Its Pope Francis.
I am a he not a she.
LOL my apologies…I thought you were a he…..your name made me think that…my apologies….
I meant I thought you were a she…..
Neither form of the Roman rite prescribes the position that the priest faces. It is not wrong to face toward the people during the Extraordinary Form nor is it wrong to face away from the people during the Ordinary Form.
…and neither do the Rubrics for either form prohibit the donning of clown makeup and a fuzzy rainbow wig, Anonymous. And yet, hmmmmmmmm, some folks may be so bold as to have an opinion of what such a ‘choice’ might indicate.
As to ‘the people’, how refreshing it would be if when referencing the position of the priest during mass we all began referencing the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
Whatever Pope Francis chooses during his reign will not impact the overall direction of Mother Church. It’s kind of like a bus with a proscribed route. The driver may change, he may give way and do donuts on the freeway, take the most indirect route out of sheer boredom or whatever. In the end, however, the bus is hard wired to reach it’s destination.
Will there be any love or any charity shown to Jesus Christ for the recent money changers in the temple fundraiser belly dancing Mass that included a belly clinging snake?
” In the end, however, the bus is hard wired to reach it’s destination.”
The fullness of the Truth has such a logical ring to it. Thank you Ann Malley!
Thank you, Catherine. It’s nice to know there are others who have a hankering for logic and Truth.
face away from the people during the Ordinary Form…You mean facing the Blessed Sacrament
Just beautiful. A priest leading the flock. That is how it should be.
Well this is why modern Churches remove the tabernacle to another place so that no one has to feel they are being discrespectful to the Sacrament by not facing it at all times.
And this is precisely why, YFC, there is such a downgrade in the understanding that Mass is first and foremost an offering to God. The ease with which removing the Tabernacle is offered as the means to appease ‘people’s’ feelings of seeming disrespect shouts volumes.
Much like, let’s not call sin sin anymore so that people won’t feel bad about seemingly giving offense. Doesn’t enter into the mind of the modernist that doing as much – despite having the supposed authority – would offend God.
Sheesh!
I understand your position, but I think that there is more to the Eucharist than what you call “first and foremost an offering”. The offering of the people, of the congregation present, is more powerfully expressed, in my opinion, with the Eucharistic Sacrifice celebrated in a space in which the Eucharist is not already present. Why make a sacrifice when the sacrifice has already been made? Yes that is radical, but I’m sorry, I’ve never understood this point of Catholic spirituality, especially when studying for my acceptance into the Roman Church.
I understand what you’re saying, YFC. It could be confusing. And yet it is still paramount to keep Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament present in His house. Central in His house. Otherwise the people will, by practice, become inclined to treat it as their house. ‘Their’ Church first and foremost. Very practical, I’ll admit, but devoid of the spiritual realities of a consecrated altar and blessed Church.
That is how some seek to justify the practices of interfaith exercises in the confines of Catholic sacred spaces. They treat the interior of the Church as if it is merely a meeting hall while relegating the very Presence of God to a sideline position.
This too in practice has a debilitating effect on the belief of the Faithful over time. Our Lord, who is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, for practical purposes, is decentralized. (which happens all the time in our daily lives) Either that or the faithful come to think that perhaps Our Lord isn’t truly present for why else would his closest friends (the clergy) put Him off to the corner.
YFC part 2:
Acceptance of spiritual reality is also why a true Muslim would never allow a Catholic service in a mosque. Neither would a ‘believing’ Jew. Why? Because they understand the notion of defilement. They respect these unseen realities.
As to the ‘offering of the people and the congregation’, it means absolutely squat if not united to the sacrifice of Christ. That is the entire reason why Christ died, so that we would have something worthy to offer God.
Regarding “Why make a sacrifice if the sacrifice has already been made.” That is Protestant thinking. For whereas you may feel less confused just because Our Lord is in a side chamber, the reality is the Sacrifice HAS been made. You know this. And yet you know that the sacrifice must continue via the mass. That is why we have the mass, YFC.
Wrong, anonymous! The priest CANNOT face the people in the Latin Mass. To do this is NOT in accordance to the rubrics of the Latin Mass and is wrong.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
Liberals/modernists think they know so much. They only fool the naïve. How little they really know, how shallow they really are in the truth. How their deception is sad, narrow-minded, and destructive to the salvation of many souls. If only the liberals/modernists would have the courage to investigate the truth, learn from pre-conciliar Roman Catholic teaching, they would wise up and muffle their flawed and erroneous comments.
What is the big deal, his saying mass in this manner does not bother me and I am not shocked!
For liberals, the act of turning one’s back on the people represents everything bad about the authoritarian, arcane bad old days of the pre-Kumbaya era. What next? Sermons about the devil?!
I wonder what the “liberals” think of those of us who belong to Ruthenian (as well as other Byzantine Catholic) parishes. Our priest has never “faced the people” to offer the Liturgy, and we have never sung Kumbaya either, and here we are, almost 50 years post-Vatican-II. DJR
As a liberal, I don’t have a problem with you or the Eastern churches celebrating ad orientum even if that is not my preferred way. What I AM shocked about is the dismissive mocking tone that you in your comment and the author of this article have towards Your Fellow Catholics. Please try to show a little respect.
YFC .. you liberals have shown 45 years of disrespect towards us traditionalist.. liberals every drop of vitriol they receive…undo Vatican 2
Canisius, I’ve never written or spoken one word of vitriol towards traditionalists, and I’ve rarely if ever heard vitriole. I do sometimes here exuberance for the newfound experience of the People of God that came after Vatican II, but it was never coupled with vitriol.
And besides, Cansisus, even if there were vitriol spoken towards traditionalists, it doesn’t make it right, nor does it give traditionalists permission to return the disfavor. We are all the Body Of Christ, and we ought to behave that way.
The newfound exuberance is debatable, YFC. For you are a liberal as you have said and would, quite naturally, view that which is occurring in the modern Church as good. You also studied to become Catholic as you stated earlier. But what precisely did you study other than post Vatican II documents/teachings?
Many here had a solid pre-Vatican II Catholic upbringing. They were formed in that which was for centuries in the Church. So much of the vitriol against ‘liberals’ is, in my view, based in having Truth ripped away or at the very least radically redefined. That in itself is debilitating, but the pain increases when Church hierarchy would have us declared anathema for pointing out the very stark inconsistencies between the pre and post Vatican II Magisterium.
Something you have perhaps never experienced…. or studied for lack of the experience/desire/sense of obedience? I don’t know. But if you truly desire to understand the whys behind the vitriol, study pre-Vatican II theology. It is quite different from that of today.
Consider it a exercise in ecumenism. After all, when I was in Catholic school we were graded on the study, attendance, and reports on the worship services of others ‘Faiths’. So why not study that which is Catholic?!
If nothing else such a venture would give you a better means to dialogue fruitfully with those who are so vehemently opposed to your POV.
Our Church’s current problems with abuse scandals, mismanagement, the “bling bishop”, Vatican finances, the uppity Cardinal Mahoney, fewer Catholics in the pews, etc., will not be solved by a priest facing the people or not facing the people during Mass. Sound policy is not a function of Mass positioning, but of prayer, reflection, outreach, study and review, consultations, and just plain “doing the right thing”.
Traditionalists should be allowed to have their Old Rite Mass offered on a voluntary basis at selected parishes with Bishop approval. Mandating going back to the Old Rite is a good recipe for Catholic parishes to greatly increase the steady departure of good Catholics who need more than Latin and a priest facing away from them during Mass as they pray and reflect about their lives, their families, and their future.
It’s about root causing all these lovelies that you point out, Good Cause, that is at the core of – or should be at the core – of anybody advocating a return to the Latin Mass. A priest facing the Blessed Sacrament or not is a mere aesthetic choice to those who do not understand the deeper implications of what both imply. It’s not about preferring the smells and bells as I’ve heard other so called traditionalists say is why they prefer the Latin Mass.
If mere preference were the case, I don’t blame you one iota for believing that the new mass is just as fruitful as the old.
Good Cause 2:
As to the ad nauseum debating, think of it as intensive family therapy that will not stop, neither the discussions, the infighting, or the messed up behaviors, until the root of the dysfunction is exposed and eradicated.
There is a ‘theological reality’ as Fr. Matthew put it. And that goes beyond just the priest facing Our Lord on the altar. What you wrote, Good Cause, reflects the precise issue that many have with the new order:
“Mandating going back to the Old Rite is a good recipe for Catholic parishes to greatly increase the steady departure of good Catholics who need more than Latin and a priest facing away from them during Mass as they pray and reflect about their lives, their families, and their future.”
Nowhere in that statement is God Himself mentioned, Good Cause. A person can reflect about their lives, families, and futures anywhere. Like in therapy. Mass is for giving worship to God. And when the faithful start putting God first, that is when things will change for the better.
As a cradle Catholic and a wanderer through “New Thought” I was browsing in St. Michael’s bookstore off Lake Forrest Pkwy. Father Mueller’s “The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass” (1847) stopped my inquiries with silencing inspiration!
Ah, the fruits of Moderinism and Vatican II. Total confusion. Remember, if you are old enough, when there was just ONE way the priest faced the altar? No discussion — it was just the way it was. People had more important things to bicker about.
Yes, Pope Francis is no Traditionalist, and, given his training and background, never will be. He may “accept” the TLM, but it is a decision made of political necessity. It is of no importance that once in awhile, Francis says Mass ad orientum, or uses some Latin here and there — he is a modernist of the first order. Yes, Francis is the Pope and yes we need to pray for him and support him. However, the siren call from the Pope to his clergy to become “less ideological” and “more pastoral” is an enormous blow to the restoration of the Church. Already, many ultra-liberal bishops, such as Bishop Gumbleton, are taking the words of Francis and demanding (if you can believe it): (1) a “restoration” of the new Missal to that best reflecting Vatican II thinking (and the elimination of “for many” back to the wrong “for all” at the consecration); (2) a “re-thinking” of the level of participation of women in the sacraments (do you think that all this talk about a “woman cardinal” is by accident); and (3) new treatment for homosesxual sexual “couples” regarding communion and marriage, married priests, ecumenical communion, and communion for divorced/re-married Catholics, among many other issues. One wants to scream: will this never end. These are people that do not like the Catholic Church, but want to steal the name and create something truly awful, like what the Episcopalians are doing right now. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi, indeed.
The former prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy has told a traditionalist group that Pope Francis has no intention of restricting access to the Extraordinary Form of the Latin liturgy.
“I met Pope Francis very recently and he told me that he has no problem with the old rite, and neither does he have any problem with lay groups and associations like yours that promote it,” Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos told members of Una Voce International (FIUV), who were in Rome for a general assembly.
From CatholicWorldNews
Too bad that it wasn’t Pope Francis himself. Would be nice to have a few impromptu calls noted in the press of His Holiness calling up or emailing a Pro-Life organization or Latin Mass attendee and encouraging them.
St. Christopher, they are not going to change a thing except the way they reach out to others in those situations. There will never, I repeat never, be a woman cardinal; Blessed John Paul II clearly stated that the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women as priests. That is an ultra liberal fantasy that they keep harping on and trying to open wounds, but it ain’t going to ever happen — at least not in the Catholic Church. Women who get “ordained” are being fully excommunicated by their bishops all the time — even in my area.
The priest is not a “performer” on a stage. But because he faces the congregation,
he is seen as one. Everyone’s eyes are on his face, his actions, etc. ….NOT
the Blessed Sacrament. The emphasis is on the priest, not God.
Actually, when you are praying the Mass, that is not the case…and it doesn’t matter what people wear or if there are altar girls or what direction the priest is facing. I have attended thousands of Masses. Sometimes things did happen that I thought would offend the Lord. I ask Mary to give to the person or their guardian angel what they need to be pleasing to the Lord. If it needs reparation, I turn toward the Tabernacle and offer a prayer that acknowledges the offense and the sorrow for it and ask for conversion of sinners or the misled.
“and it doesn’t matter what people wear or if there are altar girls or what direction the priest is facing” Utter nonsense all of this relevant, spoken like a true modernist… Kyrie Eleison
Pope Francis truly loves us all as did Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I just saw a small Catholic prayer book for sale that has the New Mass (Ordinary — post Vatican II) in it with the Latin on one side and the English on the other. Hurray! That is a good way to introduce Latin to young people so that if they want to go to the older Mass at times, they will not get so much culture shock.
Anne, an interesting post. Here’s why I find it interesting: I have no problem with masses celebrated ad orientum,nor to masses celebrated in the old rite. I do think I have a problem with masses, whether in the Ordinary Form or in the TLM in Latin. You see, Latin enjoys neither the favor of history nor of theology. Historically, masses in latin are most certainly not more ancient than masses in any of a number of ancient languages and certainly cannot trace its origins to Christ or to his followers. NONE of them heard or celbrated a mass in latin.
Theologically, why favor latin over the vernacular? There is NO theological reasoning for this. To obscure the saving words of the Last Supper is to obscure its very meaning. There is no theological value-added to latin.
I understand that spiritually, some may feel closer to a distant god if the language is distant as well. But historically and theologically, I think latinophiles are on shaky ground.
I’m not wedded to this position, so if I’m missing something, let me know.
Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church.
YFC: Latin, by virtue of its being a dead language, lends itself to the stability of meaning, ergo the stability of doctrine that is much needed in the Church as well as society. You’re an educated fellow if nothing else. You know this.
“To obscure the saving words of the Last Supper is to obscure its very meaning.” That obscuring is precisely what happens when the mass is relegating to the ever-changing aspects of the vernacular. You know that too, YFC.
YFC, I never said I wanted the Mass only in Latin — just that it be there for those who want it and want to learn it. I am well aware that the first Mass was probably in Aramaic, then on to Greek and so forth. Nevertheless, Latin is the official language of the Western Church. You are wrong on some points about the Language, also. It is helpful to learn Latin and Greek for the sciences and many other reasons. People who know Latin find it far easier to learn the Romance (Latin) languages. Furthermore, although English is considered an Indo-European language, most of our longer and some shorter English words are derived from Latin. The Romans improved English, and learning Latin improves our English vocabulary. Also, as the saying goes, “If we do not know from whence we came, we will not know where we are going,” or to put it another way, “History repeats itself, ” and we had better know it so we can avoid the pitfalls all over again, and the Latin language is part of our history. No, I do not think the Mass should only be in Latin, but when one man complained to me about one English Mass being changed to Tagalog, I did say to myself, “Maybe we should go back to Latin, so we stop fighting about what language to use.” Of course, I know that that will not work either as people will fight over that too ……. what these poor priests must go through! Gheesh!
A correction: Although the Lord Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic, most likely the first Mass was in Hebrew, the language used for worship in the Temple.
Why would a priest have his back turned against God whom he is making an offering to on behalf of the people? Seems pretty offensive to God if you think about it.
The offering is to God the Father, not to God the Son. Theologically confusing perhaps? And what about the Holy Spirit whom the Father sent in place of the Son?
Yes, YFC, the offering is to God the Father. The Blessed Sacrament, by virtue of It’s being the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, also encompasses the Father and the Holy Ghost in a mystical manner.
God the Father is always with God the Son and as such are always with God, the Holy Ghost. They are distinct persons yet always together.
That is why Our Lord says in John 16:32 “…but I am not alone, because the Father is with me.” Also, John 14:9-12 speaking to Philip: “Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known me? Phillip, he who sees me sees also the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Dost thou not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?”
This is why it is PARAMOUNT to have the Tabernacle front and center, to have the Blessed Sacrament front and center. Elsewise we risk losing touch with the reality that he who sees Christ also sees the Father. This is Catholic Truth.
There is an old joke about the Priest who walks in on a bunch of 7th and 8th graders sitting in a large circle. They are yelling at each other, calling each other names, and being very insulting to each other. The Priest told them to stop behaving badly. One of the students said: “Its alright Father, we are just playing church.”
JMJ A bus driver conducts us on an earthly journey from A to B, a Priest conducts us on the Heavenly Pilgrimage. How secure would you feel if the bus driver turned around? What we have ask is what it is that God wants, it is His Liturgy not ours, He clearly states”My ways are not your ways….” end of story, face God.
One cannot penetrate the great Wisdom and Love of God that is in everything-even the smallest things-with a selfish heart.
Why is it assumed that God is behind the priest in the present arrangement and not in front of him with and among the people?
JMJ Caroline, the Altar represents Christ and the Tabernacle secured to the Altar are one. The Altar is for Sacrifice the table is for a meal. The Tabernacle contains the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, yes God’s physical presence. Naturally He takes central stage like a King would in a hall, and the Priest faces God, not Man. Big difference between actual OR Real presence as opposed to spiritual presence.
Please read from Amazon Books The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background Paperback
by Klaus Gamber
I humbly reccommend that you study this book.
God is everywhere. I hope they don’t freak if they ever go to St. Peters-because the Mass there has always been celebrated with the priest facing the people. Many other churches in Rome are the same. They ascribe a meaning to it that it does not really have. It is not bad as long as they don’t assume that other people who are doing nothing wrong are less than they.