There is nothing wrong with the question posed by Matthew Warner (Feb. 26, 2011), as such. The discussion quickly migrates, however, both in his post and the following comments, to the far different and much less profitable question: "Which do you like better?" The former question calls for arguments based on objective facts about historical development, theology, etc.; whereas the latter becomes a fruitless quarrel over personal picture preferences, the upshot of which is de gustibus non est disputandum.
[Hat tip to J.M.]
15 comments:
Have you seen Warner's "update", Phil?
"UPDATE: I’ve already had a number of comments (below) criticize even the posing of the question as to which form of the Mass people like “better”...and then they ironically go on to say which one they like better. Very funny guys! :-) Obviously, both are equal in the sense that they are valid and licit when done properly. I just wanted to know what people liked better and why. I don’t really criticize either form in the post and I certainly don’t have to have gone to a Latin Mass in order to ask this question. I was hoping to have a civil conversation about it to see what all of you thought AND to hear some ideas on how to bring them together (or at least not allow them to divide us). I sincerely thank those of you who have done that and continue to do so. I really appreciate it and I know others do, too."
A great piece by Fr Chad Ripperger on this very question:
http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/757bb466a5ca6270ded190925c7f227f-611.html
Yes, Franciscan. I saw it before I posted my piece. It goes without saying that I appreciate his call for unity and charity; but that was beside the point of my own post. The question his title poses is a good one, but not one that can be decided by reducing it to preferences of taste ("I just wanted to know what people liked better ...").
The following, too, is beside the point of my own post, but I do find it all a bit curious, I suppose. It's as if the host of a TV show in a country that largely considers Sashimi the equivalent of fish bait and much prefers moon pies, wanted to broadcast a show about whether people prefer Sashimi or moon pies, and admits to himself that he's never tried Sashimi. No criticism here. I just find it a bit odd, that's all. Don't you?
I will most likely be chastised for saying this but the following is a question in sincerity. The whole thing over the priest facing the tabernacle, and yes it is the true presence of Christ, is a bit puzzling to me. If we are to fast in the real sense not just from food but the real fast of waiting to receive Christ at mass, shouldn’t the tabernacle be empty and the focus on the Eucharistic celebration happening in front of us? The focus isn’t on anything but the actual economy of salvation through liturgy, the real presence of God acting through the Church pouring out His grace on us as free gift.
The Missal of Paul VI or Missal of 1969, many call the “Novus Ordo” was actually written to be offered in Latin, with the vernacular permitted for the epistle and Gospel.
The norm for the ordinary parts of the “Novus Ordo” is in Latin and ad orientem, though.
This norm has been hijacked and abused by those who do not obey the mandates of the Second Vatican Council.
The Novus Ordo in its entirety in the vernacular, as forseen by the Fathers of Vatican II, is an anolmaly and should be the exception rather than the rule.
John Doe raises an interesting question, which I answer thus: the tabernacle need not be left empty, because He can (and should) be worshiped before, during and after Mass.
Those who answer that the tabernacle must be left empty play into the absurd position that Christ is a distraction at Mass, and also to the idea that one must receive from that species confected at the Mass which one attends. Both are un-Catholic ideas.
John Doe,
Good question, and one to which someone else has already given a good answer. There is, of course, a lot more that could be said than any of us are capable of going into just here. For example, since apostolic times there has been the tradition of facing toward the rising sun in the East as representing the Parousia of our resurrected Lord, so that the ad orientem was never simply a matter of facing the reserved Sacrament in the Tabernacle, which was in some sense a later development, if certainly an organic one.
The argument you make is one that has been common since V-II, and one used often to justify the removal of the Tabernacle from its place ON the altar until the post-Conciliar innovations often led to placing it someplace else within or outside of the church (I won't go into other possible or probable motives at the time for that removal).
If one took your suggestion literally, one would be recapitulating before every weekday and Sunday Mass what used to be commemorated in the traditional service of Tennebrae, as well as the tradition of removing our Lord from the Tabernacle, which continues today continued on Maundy Thursdays. I'm not sure that's what the Church has in mind by the traditional fast preceding Holy Communion. Isn't it, rather, a matter of spiritual focus, recollecting oneself before receiving our Lord in Holy Communion, realizing that our most vital nourishment is not earthly food but the Bread of Life? (Our traditions of ascetic theology have long stressed how fasting brings clarity and focus to one's spiritual vision.)
On the other hand, there seems something prima facie unseemly about removing our Lord to a side altar or some other place inside or outside of the church so that one focuses, instead, on the altar as though it were something independent. By contrast, this problem never arises where the Tabernacle is on the center axis ON the altar, and the priest, together WITH the congregation, faces ad orientem; for one is then always in the Real Presence of our Lord -- before, during, and after the liturgy and Canon of the Mass.
If you've visited a traditional Latin Mass, with the demonstrative awe suggested by nearly every gesture of priest and server, you know that nothing is lost in this arrangement, and that much is in fact gained.
One does not have, for example, the cognitive dissonance of bowing toward an empty altar before Mass while effectively ignoring the Blessed Sacrament on a side altar (or at the REAR of the church, as I once saw at a parish in Mooresville, NC) -- or, what is nearly worse, a priest behind a free-standing altar, bowing toward the congregation versus populum, effectively sticking his butt toward the Tabernacle when it happens to be affixed behind him on the center axis behind the altar in some parishes.
The older tradition kept things much simpler, facilitating a sense of reverence in the Presence of our Lord, which I think may be much more challenging to achieve with the currently prevailing furniture arrangements in Catholic churches. Even the idea of the "Sanctuary" is almost lost to collective memory these days.
My 2 cents worth. God bless.
There is couple of points that should be obvious to anyone who actually read my post. The first point goes out to Anonymous. The first point of yours, “need not be empty” of course it need not be empty, that isn’t the point. The second point you raise, yes worship everywhere always goes without saying. The next paragraph is in itself absurd. The tabernacle must be left empty is not what I said, the tabernacle to be open at mass on Sunday. The idea that Christ is a distraction is also nowhere to be found in my post, the whole point is worship not socialization. Once consecrated the Eucharist is permanent so I don’t know where you got the idea of must be received from host confected at mass. If you pay attention you will soon find out we do this at mass, read the post from Papist or turn to MT 9:14-15, “Then John's disciples came to him and said, 'Why is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?' Jesus replied, 'Surely the bridegroom's attendants cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is still with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.”
Lastly, theological inquiry shouldn’t become visceral.
Papist,
Not all Churches face east even the ones pre-VII. I never said and do not hold that tabernacles should be anywhere but centered in the sanctuary. I don’t like them moved anywhere and they should not be moved anywhere else besides liking where it is. The tabernacle is for reserved consecrated host for the week and the sick, this I different from Sunday Eucharistic celebration. Nobody bows to an empty tabernacle and your posture as well as disposition at mass is nothing but reverent.
In the good old days, when there were lots of Masses being said on altars other than the high altar of the church, the priest reverenced the altar on which he was celebrating Mass rather than the Tabernacle. Maybe my memory decieves me but it also seems to me that, the Tabernacle was not necessarily on, or directly behind, the main altar in large churches.
That the priest celebrating facing the congregation has his back to Jesus is very much a recent concern. More often I've heard Novus Ordo fanatics mocking the ad orientem mode because the priest bows with his posterior to the congregation. (They seem to forget that the entire congregation, except for the back benchers, does the same thing without giving offense.)
John Doe,
Not to nit-pick, and certainly no offense intended, but I would have read your first comment exactly as Anonymous and Pertinacious Papist did.
True, in your SECOND comment, you write: "The tabernacle must be left empty is NOT what I said ..." (emphasis added).
But in your first comment, you wrote: "... 'SHOULDN'T THE TABERNACLE BE EMPTY and the focus [be] on the Eucharistic celebration happening in front of us?" (emphasis added).
Which would seem to justify their responses, which I do not take as being at all "visceral." Perhaps Anonymous' term "absurd" is strong, but it doesn't strike me as "visceral," if by that you mean anything untoward.
The more interesting point you raise is an exegetical one based on the Johannine Gospel, which I'm not competent to address, and a theological point about the pre-communion fast. My gut response is that you raise a good question, but that if you're suggestion we shouldn't fast because the Bridegroom is with us in the Blessed Sacrament, I'm not sure that would fly.
John Doe,
It's true that not all churches have always faced east, even though that is the overwhelming tradition. But even those that didn't, like some of the earliest basilicas, whose doors in the back of the church actually faced east, the priest and congregation still collectively faced east, as Klaus Gamber points out in his book, forming a 'V' fanning out from the altar and facing the rising sun in the east outside the doors in the back of the church.
Dan,
It's true, as you observe, that the priest venerated and incensed the side altars on which there was no reserved Sacrament in pre-V2 churches. That's perfectly good and right, as is the claim that the priest at the high altar reverences the crucifix in front or above the Tabernacle as well. Isn't it still true that if anyone were asked where Jesus is really present in the church prior to the consecration or after mass, that anyone in the know would promptly reply: "In the Tabernacle above the high altar"?
Dan Hunter,
The original Latin rubrics of Paul VI's N.O. Mass do indeed assume the ad orientem stance of the priest, as you suggest.
In fact, you write: "This norm has been hijacked and abused by those who do not obey the mandates of the Second Vatican Council"; adding that the vernacular version of the New Mass "is an anomaly and should be the exception rather than the rule."
But if one examines the numerous OPTIONS presented in the GIRM of 1969 and 1970, as well as in Sacrosanctum Concilium, is it not rather the case that these were both designed precisely for hijacking?
George wrote:
“But in your first comment, you wrote: "... 'SHOULDN'T THE TABERNACLE BE EMPTY and the focus [be] on the Eucharistic celebration happening in front of us?" (emphasis added).”
This is more of a question than requiring to be made statute. The question is a far cry from “must” or “may” and a better counter question with “when.” The answer to when is only for Eucharistic celebration, on Sunday.
I don’t mean to nit pick either George, but I said should not become visceral not “is” visceral. It’s more of a warning shot across the bow for all to remain peaceful and to put down your arms.
The whole point is that we should fast, in answer to the last sentence of your reply.
George,
Those in the know would say, "In the tabernacle" but whether they would say "above the high altar" would depend on the church and whether the answer required the location of the tabernacle. Granted, most of the time that answer would be right but they wouldn't need to say it.
:-)
Dan
Post a Comment