What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

There is discussion of Mass ad orientem in another entry.  I remember some time ago I wrote a response on one of my columns to a writer asking about rubrics and ad orientem celebrations.  Here is the relevant part (some emphasis added):

Long-time reader and now frequent participant on the WDTPRS internet blog, HE of TN, sent a note via e-mail relative to this interview.  Here is HE (edited):  “...the notorious pessimist Prof. L. Perrin has a … post today including this claim: ‘As Abp Ranjith is stressing, a Latin versus Deum Novus Ordo Mass is entirely faithful to the Vatican II Constitution, even more faithful. But what Abp Ranjith is ‘forgetting’ is to mention the 3rd edition of [the Missale Romanum] (2002) is pushing for versus populum … against the two previous Pauline editions and Vatican II.’”  Then HE asks me directly: “Do you know anything in the 3rd edition of the Missale Romanum that says this? Aside from the well-known mistranslation of GIRM #299 that you have discussed several times?  Anything in the MR 2002 rubrics themselves? For instance, does it still say several places that the priest is to turn and face the people?”

Indeed, HE of TN, Yes. Welcome to “What Do The Rubrics Really Say?”  There are still indications in the rubrics of the 2002MR which presuppose that the priest is celebrating ad orientem.  Here are two examples.  In #132 we find:

Sacerdos genuflectit, accipit hostiam, eamque aliquantulum elevatam super patenam vel super calicem tenens, versus ad populum, clara voce dicit: Ecce Agnus Dei,....  The priest genuflects, takes the Host and, holding it raised a little way over the paten or over the chalice, having turned toward the people, says in a clear voice: Behold the Lamb of God….

The people make their response and then in #133 we find:

Et sacerdos, versus ad altare, secreto dicit:  Corpus Christi….  And the priest, having turned toward the altar, says silently: May the Body of Christ…

In these two rubrics there is a specific order of actions.  First, the priest turns to the people.  Then, he turns to the altar.  This is only possible if the priest is celebrating Holy Mass facing the altar and the people are behind him facing the same direction as the priest.  The rubric is clear in this moment before Communion.  

Somewhat less immediately clear is the rubric at the Orate Fratres in #29, which says that the priest, while standing at the middle of the altar, turns to the people (versus ad populum) to say “Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours…”.  Then in #30 the priest is directed to speak the Super Oblata prayer, but there is no indication that he turns back to the altar: there is no second versus.  Why?  The priest, turning to the people to invite their response, simply continues to turn in the same direction back to the altar.  The single versus in this case indicates a completed turn in circle.  In #132 and #133 (above) the two different instances of versus indicate two turns, one toward the people by the priest’s right and one toward the altar by his left.  There is no complete circle.  In this way the Novus Ordo is consistent with the older “Tridentine” Rite at this same moment in Mass.  In the older, traditional way the priest turns by his right away from the altar and toward the people. He speaks the invitation.  He turns back to the altar, always by his right, in the same direction, thus completing the circle.  The rubric in the 2002MR has language very similar to the corresponding rubric in the 1962MR.  Thus, HE of TN, we have clear support in the 2002MR for ad orientem celebration.

If anyone (read: parish priest) were looking for suppport in the rubrics themselves, here you go.

Not only that.  Some years ago I did a translation of an article in Notitiae for the journal Sacred Music about celebrations ad orientem versus.  Then I wrote an examination of those articles.  The bottom line is this: the principle if the unicity of the altar is strong enough that if there is a serious altar of artistic or architectural merit, and it is ad orientem, you should not put another altar in front of it.  That was in Notitiae. 

The famed liturgist Klaus Gamber, so appreciated by Joseph Ratzinger, thought that the changing of the direction of the altar was more damaging than any other change after the Council.  Both Jungmann and Bouyer said they were wrong in their initial support of versus populum celebrations. 

There is a lot more, but chew on that for a while.

Sandro Magister has a very good article this week about the French Conference’s meeting, the issue of the possible "indult" and other related things.  Here is one of best snips:

Benedict XVI wants to heal this schism – which is, in effect, more doctrinal than liturgical – but he also wants to grant, beginning immediately, the innocent desire of those priests and faithful who are fond of the Latin Mass in the ancient rite. He therefore has it in mind to facilitate the use of the Tridentine missal, in particular by removing the obligation to obtain permission from the local bishop.

And that has stirred up the French bishops.

Magister dissects the snarky comments made by members of the French conference about the mere desire for the use of the older Missale as well as the real issues which concern the French.  He also brings in quotes from His Eminence Francis Card. Arinze’s speech to the conference, which functioned "like a cold shower".  Here are some quotes from Cardinal’s speech:

“The sacred liturgy is not something that has been invented…”

“Many of the abuses in the liturgical domain have arisen, not from ill will, but from ignorance…”

“We must distance ourselves from that coldness, that horizontalism that places man at the center of the liturgical action, and also from the openly egocentric showmanship that our Sunday assemblies are sometimes obliged to witness…”

“Unfortunately, many homilies seem like addresses marked by considerations of sociology, psychology, or – even worse – politics. Sometimes they are delivered by members of the lay faithful, who are not even authorized to deliver the homily, which is reserved for those who have received ordination…”

“For a priest to try to share with the lay faithful the role that he exercises in the liturgy by virtue of his being a priest, and which is strictly reserved to him, is evidence of false humility and of an inadmissible conception of democracy or fraternity… “

“If one weakens the role of the priest or fails to appreciate it, a local Catholic community can sink dangerously into the idea that it is possible to envision a community without a priest…”

Cardinal Arinze repeatedly cited the 2003 encyclical by John Paul II, “Ecclesia de Eucharistia,” an encyclical whose “primary purpose” – according to the authoritative theologian Giuseppe Colombo – that of “denouncing what is probably the most widespread abuse in today’s Church: that of celebrating the Mass without an ordained priest.”

 

I am hearing these days that the indult is in trouble.  However, I do not believe that to be true in the long run.  Magister agrees:

 

It is thus foreseeable that Benedict XVI will take a little more time, will listen to the objections from some bishops and cardinals, but in the end – probably by winter – will issue the Motu Proprio that will facilitate the use of the Tridentine rite.  

 

The indult needs a lot of work… for it to work.   Forces arrayed against it are considerable.  However, Pope Benedict has a strong record and clear thinking about the use of the older form of Mass.  That should never be far from the minds of those who want it.

I need some help with something. 

People often claim that St. Teresa of Avila said that in a vision she saw soul falling like snowfalkes into hell.  When I search around the web, I find the claim, but never a concrete citation from her works. 

Does anyone out there have it?

Usually I show you shots from my westward facing window toward St. Peter’s.  And why woulnd’t I?  I do have other windows, however.  Here is an early morning shot toward the south east, nearly into the sun.