Ad orientem.... versus populum... their entire argument has been Latinized.
I'm kinda curious what other Eastern Churches think of it. Also kinda curious what would happen if the bishops said "fine, face whatever direction you please... behind an iconostasis."
The Maronites and others generally face the people. This took place according to the latinization of their Liturgy. The current texts are from their restored Syriac liturgical Tradition but not the position of the celebrant.
The ikonostases of today generally would allow for those of the Byzantine Tradition to see which direction the priest faces and there is no great push among Byzantine Catholics or Orthodox to face the people.
In the late 1960's and the 1970's I attended "experimental" Divine Liturgies facing the people in front of the ikonostas but happily these were seen as weird attempts to be "relevant" and "hip." It is a great blessing that they died out in the few places that did this.
The Syro Malabar shave never had an ikonostas as but did at one time have a veil across the holy place the was opened and closed for certain parts of the Qurbano. This went away with latinizations even before Vatican II called for the reform of the Latin Liturgy.
Not that I have a lot of experience with ikonostases, but I thought you could see the priest well enough to tell his position, but really not well enough to get a human-connection type look at his face.
You can see what position the priest is in through most ikonostases. Most churches today do not have the older curtain that was closed at times behind the Royal Doors. The priest turns toward the people during the Liturgy when he addresses them or gives blessings.
Yeah. The reason I mentioned the human connection is that I think the desire for that is why people tend to want versus populum. And that the desire to not have it is why people tend to want ad Orientem. Turning around completely blocks that, but looking at someone through a grating with a bunch of icons on it would do a lot to obscure it as well, possibly enough to prevent it almost entirely, even if you can see where he is and how he's standing.
Personally, I like ad populum because in South Bend one can frequently see the consecrated hosts in the ciboriums and spend the time after the Consecration adoring Jesus.
Well, I can't say that's ever been my experience at an ad populum Mass, but I've never been in South Bend. But one doesn't really need to see to adore. You adore the Sacred Blood when the chalice is elevated, without seeing it.
But I do understand the desire to see, that being the whole point of the Monstrance.
It is remarkable how badly the Church handles these situations. I can only think that it’s because we are so used to an ironclad obedience, so when people in the “Age of the Laity” speak up, the hierarchy short-circuits and attempts to impose edicts.
The “priest facing the people at Mass” thing is silly. I have even read commenters online say, “I am sure Jesus did not turn His back on His disciples at the Last Supper.” No, you are quite right. He did not. He faced the same direction as them. The Last Supper was conducted according to oriental custom — no table, A tablecloth on mats spread on the floor, everyone including our Lord reclining on one elbow on pillows along one side of the table while the servants served the various dishes on the other.
When the early Christians rose in the morning they faced East to pray. At the Eucharist, they faced East to pray; for the East was the direction from which came the rising sun, the most powerful symbol they had for the Second Coming of Christ —so priest and people faced East, awaiting their blessed hope, the coming of the Savior. The priest was not celebrating with his back to the people. He was facing IN THE SAME DIRECTION as the people. In fact, he was one of The People (fancy that ??!). In the East and West, that is how the Eucharist was offered. If the Lord came in glory during that Mass, He would find His Church, Priest and People, awaiting a him.
When I was in the seminary, we were told that the arrangement of the papal altar in St Peter’s Basilica heartened back to the earliest Church, for the Holy Father always celebrated facing the people in St Peter’s. This was exactly wrong: St Peter’s was built so that the main altar would be directly over the tomb of the Apostle. Because of geography, this meant that the Altar had to be at the WEST end of the basilica, not the East end. The Pope therefore stood at the West end of the altar facing East (therefore facing the people), but the principle of the eastward position was maintained in that the Pope was facing East, offering the prayers; the people were on the sides (leaving the center free for processions) and the people turned their back to the altar to face East for the prayers.
The priest facing the people business in the Roman Rite, which was represented after the Council as a return to the early church, was a serious error. But the adoption of it by the Eastern Rites that did so was even more serious. They are supposed to be guarding their distinctive rites from Latinization. They have an incredibly rich treasury of traditions which they are supposed to keep from being swamped by the eight hundred pound gorillas in the room, the Roman Rite.
Perhaps I have just missed it, but I think the Church missed a huge opportunity in not explaining this patiently and carefully. To the whole Church. The Roman Rite faithful could benefit from understanding that something precious and ancient was lost at the time of the postconciliar reform
(with the result that every day I offer Mass like Julia Child doing a cooking demonstration at a kitchen island). The Eastern Rite Catholics could have benefitted by a catechesis that emphasized the heritage received from the early Church. And these Indians might have reflected on the precious gift of their tradition and the importance of not uncritically adopting latinization. If they are not careful, they will wake up one Sunday morning finding themselves expected to sing Eagles’ Wings! I would wish to spare them this.
Why look for His second coming when after the Consecration He is present right here in the flesh and if the priest isn't blocking the view one can adore Him until Communion?
Specifically, on the embolism following the Lord’s Prayer EVERY DAY at Mass: “as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ.” Or, all three of the memorial acclamations after the consecration: “…we await Your return in glory.” All of which are post consecration. And any number of other prayers throughout the Liturgy.
Turn then to your New Testament, to the very end of the Book of Revelation, Scripture’s last word.
When something has been implanted in our hearts consistently by the Church for millennia, it’s important.
Ad orientem.... versus populum... their entire argument has been Latinized.
I'm kinda curious what other Eastern Churches think of it. Also kinda curious what would happen if the bishops said "fine, face whatever direction you please... behind an iconostasis."
The Maronites and others generally face the people. This took place according to the latinization of their Liturgy. The current texts are from their restored Syriac liturgical Tradition but not the position of the celebrant.
The ikonostases of today generally would allow for those of the Byzantine Tradition to see which direction the priest faces and there is no great push among Byzantine Catholics or Orthodox to face the people.
In the late 1960's and the 1970's I attended "experimental" Divine Liturgies facing the people in front of the ikonostas but happily these were seen as weird attempts to be "relevant" and "hip." It is a great blessing that they died out in the few places that did this.
The Syro Malabar shave never had an ikonostas as but did at one time have a veil across the holy place the was opened and closed for certain parts of the Qurbano. This went away with latinizations even before Vatican II called for the reform of the Latin Liturgy.
Not that I have a lot of experience with ikonostases, but I thought you could see the priest well enough to tell his position, but really not well enough to get a human-connection type look at his face.
You can see what position the priest is in through most ikonostases. Most churches today do not have the older curtain that was closed at times behind the Royal Doors. The priest turns toward the people during the Liturgy when he addresses them or gives blessings.
Yeah. The reason I mentioned the human connection is that I think the desire for that is why people tend to want versus populum. And that the desire to not have it is why people tend to want ad Orientem. Turning around completely blocks that, but looking at someone through a grating with a bunch of icons on it would do a lot to obscure it as well, possibly enough to prevent it almost entirely, even if you can see where he is and how he's standing.
Personally, I like ad populum because in South Bend one can frequently see the consecrated hosts in the ciboriums and spend the time after the Consecration adoring Jesus.
Well, I can't say that's ever been my experience at an ad populum Mass, but I've never been in South Bend. But one doesn't really need to see to adore. You adore the Sacred Blood when the chalice is elevated, without seeing it.
But I do understand the desire to see, that being the whole point of the Monstrance.
It is remarkable how badly the Church handles these situations. I can only think that it’s because we are so used to an ironclad obedience, so when people in the “Age of the Laity” speak up, the hierarchy short-circuits and attempts to impose edicts.
The “priest facing the people at Mass” thing is silly. I have even read commenters online say, “I am sure Jesus did not turn His back on His disciples at the Last Supper.” No, you are quite right. He did not. He faced the same direction as them. The Last Supper was conducted according to oriental custom — no table, A tablecloth on mats spread on the floor, everyone including our Lord reclining on one elbow on pillows along one side of the table while the servants served the various dishes on the other.
When the early Christians rose in the morning they faced East to pray. At the Eucharist, they faced East to pray; for the East was the direction from which came the rising sun, the most powerful symbol they had for the Second Coming of Christ —so priest and people faced East, awaiting their blessed hope, the coming of the Savior. The priest was not celebrating with his back to the people. He was facing IN THE SAME DIRECTION as the people. In fact, he was one of The People (fancy that ??!). In the East and West, that is how the Eucharist was offered. If the Lord came in glory during that Mass, He would find His Church, Priest and People, awaiting a him.
When I was in the seminary, we were told that the arrangement of the papal altar in St Peter’s Basilica heartened back to the earliest Church, for the Holy Father always celebrated facing the people in St Peter’s. This was exactly wrong: St Peter’s was built so that the main altar would be directly over the tomb of the Apostle. Because of geography, this meant that the Altar had to be at the WEST end of the basilica, not the East end. The Pope therefore stood at the West end of the altar facing East (therefore facing the people), but the principle of the eastward position was maintained in that the Pope was facing East, offering the prayers; the people were on the sides (leaving the center free for processions) and the people turned their back to the altar to face East for the prayers.
The priest facing the people business in the Roman Rite, which was represented after the Council as a return to the early church, was a serious error. But the adoption of it by the Eastern Rites that did so was even more serious. They are supposed to be guarding their distinctive rites from Latinization. They have an incredibly rich treasury of traditions which they are supposed to keep from being swamped by the eight hundred pound gorillas in the room, the Roman Rite.
Perhaps I have just missed it, but I think the Church missed a huge opportunity in not explaining this patiently and carefully. To the whole Church. The Roman Rite faithful could benefit from understanding that something precious and ancient was lost at the time of the postconciliar reform
(with the result that every day I offer Mass like Julia Child doing a cooking demonstration at a kitchen island). The Eastern Rite Catholics could have benefitted by a catechesis that emphasized the heritage received from the early Church. And these Indians might have reflected on the precious gift of their tradition and the importance of not uncritically adopting latinization. If they are not careful, they will wake up one Sunday morning finding themselves expected to sing Eagles’ Wings! I would wish to spare them this.
Why look for His second coming when after the Consecration He is present right here in the flesh and if the priest isn't blocking the view one can adore Him until Communion?
I would invite you to reflect on the Liturgy.
Specifically, on the embolism following the Lord’s Prayer EVERY DAY at Mass: “as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior Jesus Christ.” Or, all three of the memorial acclamations after the consecration: “…we await Your return in glory.” All of which are post consecration. And any number of other prayers throughout the Liturgy.
Turn then to your New Testament, to the very end of the Book of Revelation, Scripture’s last word.
When something has been implanted in our hearts consistently by the Church for millennia, it’s important.