I noticed the Zenit interview with Father Uwe Michael Lang, an advocate of the Catholic priest facing east to lead the people in prayer. He criticizes the over-simplification of the priest “turning his back to the people.” And he does make respectable arguments to support his view.
Yet I found his attempt at conducting a two-way debate more shallow. He described two contrary points to his arguments. But I have to say if you want to conduct a discussion, it’s really more helpful to have a real person rather than yourself. Here’s his summation of “turning around the altars”:
First, it is often said that this was the practice of the early Church, which should be the norm for our age; however, a close study of the sources shows that this claim does not hold.
I’m afraid the liturgical scholar is off on a few presumptions here. The Christian Eucharist may well have been inspired by aspects of Jewish worship. But at its root, it is modeled on the Jewish Pesach, a home ritual in which people gather around a table. We have no historical visual depictions of the Last Supper, but practically every Christian artist shows Jesus and his disciples at table.
I’m also not sure that liturgical scholars insist that early Church practices must be modern norms. It would seem that as accretions of the Roman Missal were pruned away in the 60’s, we would look closely at early practices. The presumptions would be many: being closer to apostolic practices, searching these practices for the essentials, an attempt to recover the verve of the early believers in a time of great trial.
Second, it is maintained that the “active participation” of the faithful, a principle that was introduced by Pope Pius X and is central to “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” demanded celebration toward the people.
I’m less convinced the priest was as important in this development as the consideration of visibility. When ritual actions are hidden from people, they want to know what’s going on. There’s a natural curiosity in play: what is the priest doing?
Fr Lang also misses the scope and boundary between the council and the bishops of the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t give a blueprint for liturgical reform. It offered some specifics. Pointed in a direction for others. It left much up to the bishops, in conferences and locally.
Was the desire for visibility too fast to be an organic change? It has been largely embraced by Catholics: clergy and laity alike. One might argue that the Holy Spirit doesn’t wait for organic (read: slow) development.
As evidence that the post-conciliar movement is more about the priest getting out of the way than facing the people, I’d offer the architectural trend to half-circle seating. The point is not to imitate secular performance venues, as the less-informed critics suggest, but to maximize visibility for the greatest number of people to approach as closely as possible.
If anything, I would contend that the traditional Mass reinforces certain elements more akin to modern entertainment than traditional worship. Without the Eucharistic elements to view, people watch what moves: and that would be the clergy and their assistants. Especially the ones with the nice clothes.
I appreciate the image of a pilgrim people facing East in respect to the coming of Christ’s reign. However, the East is purely a theoretical construct. Not every church is built toward an authentic East. And very few churches provide what has been an engineering possibility: an open window to the East. What clergy and people think they face is the tabernacle-plus-reredos construction.
The post-conciliar realization for Roman Catholics was as much about a focus on the prayer and action at the Mass being celebrated as it was a promotion of more visualization.
In other words, it’s less about facing the people and more about the recognition for and reverence of Christ’s Real Presence in the midst of the celebration of the faithful. The geometry of post-conciliar worship is the same as it was fifty years ago: we still orient toward Christ. But it’s more about a radial geometry of worship than a linear one.
22 September 2007 at 9:20 am
practically every Christian artist shows Jesus and his disciples at table
Yes, and all facing the same direction together…
In his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Joseph Ratzinger suggested that a crucifix on the altar could be a point of “liturgical east.” This idea has evidently been around for some time. In Atchison, Ks, at St. Benedict’s Abbey Church, a crucifix hangs from between sanctuary and nave – it has two corpuses – one facing east and the other west…
Fred
22 September 2007 at 10:34 am
The more common longitudinal/cruciform arrangement has a huge benefit over radially-oriented celebrations – it’s naturally acoustically far superior in its basic basilican form.* Centralised plans have long been known for creating a haze of sound – great for the hazy ancient-vernacular choral/presidential chants of the Eastern churchs, but awful for the kind of participation Vatican II envisioned for the Roman rite. (I am speaking here of full-size churches, not small oratories and chapels, where the acoustic problems of centralized plans are reduced.) Amplification is a crutch that rarely overcomes the problems with centralize placements. When clients and designers understand that the natural acoustical aspects of building churchs are at least as important as the visual ones, we may see some progress. I’ve yet to hear or witness any, though.
* I am not a fan of complex Gothic-vaulted cathedrals for the same acoustical reasons (I prefer them for chapels), but their builders didn’t have Vatican II in mind – modern builders don’t have that justification. As I’ve said before, experiencing the clarity of sung Roman ritual in a marvel like S. Maria Maggiore re-arranges what one imagines is optimal and possible for the Roman rite in acoustical terms. It brings an wonderful mixture of immediacy and transcendency of presences that mere visuals can only hope to point to.
22 September 2007 at 3:14 pm
A good explanation of the reasons behind modern practices. A few comments.
1) In a number of explanatory letters sent out to parishioners telling them why there will be no Tridentine mass, pastors and others have routinely said that the new mass is how the early Christians did it. So that belief is out there, and being used. That’s why he responded to that belief.
2) The early Christians were developing a way to worship. To believe that they instantly developed the best way to do it is presumptuous. It might be equally possible that gradually, over the centuries, the church learned how to create a truly meaningful liturgy that allowed silences so necessary to true spiritual development. The Tridentine mass might just be a better, more developed mass than the early ones. The early church might not have had “verve” – they might just have had a lot of confusion.
3) It seems to me that the Novus Ordo is a great mass for LEARNING the mass thoroughly, precisely because you can see what is going on. It is a beginner’s mass. But once you thoroughly understand what is going on, what each part of the mass is, I think you will find it more meaningful to go to the Tridentine mass. In this sense, I think the Pope got it just right. Novus ordo is ordinary, Tridentine is extraordinary (but not rare). It would be infinitely beneficial to have one Tridentine and 2 or three Novus Ordos every sunday. Why not be inclusive and reach out to several levels of understanding and belief?
4)Seating style (circular, etc)is massively irrelevant. If the mass is being done well and the people Really understrand what is going on, the form of sitting does not matter in the slightest. To focus on such secondary matters is a diversion.
5) I think you are dead wrong on the entertainment value being greater at the Tridentine rite. Let’s face it. The priest facing the people screams “Look at me!”. All my life, I thought it was infinitely better when the priest presented himself as one of the people, merely stepping forward to offer the sacrifice on the part of the people. It led your eye and your heart inevitably up, and it was fixed on the cross, and to heaven. The priest was not a presider (as in the Novus Ordo), he was a facilitator. He was one of us.
6) Your statement that “The post-conciliar realization for Roman Catholics was as much about a focus on the prayer and action at the Mass being celebrated as it was a promotion of more visualization.” is dead on – and that’s why I think the Novus Ordo is a good beginner’s mass. The training wheels of masses. But after you have learned what is going on, then what? Wouldn’t you like to be allowed to ponder deeply on what is going on, enjoy a mass that is organized around reflection and mystery, rather than listen to Harold and his guitar, or Suzy and her troop of liturgical dancers? When you are familiar with the mass and all its intricacies, all of that hubub just gets in the way of deeply contemplating the real presence and what that means in your life. After all, if that guy is really holding up the body and blood of God, you have some deep thinking to do. That is the beauty of the Catholic mass. It insists, it virtually screams that God is real. And once we get that through our noggins, we must change.
If all of this modernization has focused on the right things, how come everything fell apart after all of the changes were instituted? If it increased the people’s ability to see what was going on, etc. How come less and less Catholics really seem to have any idea what is going on?
I say both are needed. Badly.
22 September 2007 at 3:40 pm
Fred, thanks for the comments. I had not considered your thoughts about the Tridentine and modern forms in terms of beginning and advanced. I’ve found that monastic practices are usually far advanced over parishes–even what I oversee in fairly well-developed and catechized bodies of parishioners. If I weren’t connected to a parish by employment and living location, I’d much prefer daily worship with the Benedictines.
I guess we agree to disagree on the priest focus with the 1962 Missal. Most images one finds on the net zero in on the clergy, and it is they who are doing all the significant action. Very watchable, I would think. But a performance in some ways far different than the mic-hogging talk show host. But not in all ways.
“If all of this modernization has focused on the right things, how come everything fell apart after all of the changes were instituted?”
In Europe, things were falling apart from decades before the council. I’ve long thought (and bloggged the opinion frequently) that the Church’s impotence in the face of the extreme European violence of the period 1870-1945 was crushing to the religious sensibility of Europe. As for the Americans, you get the discouragement of the 1960’s assassinations, the demise of the ethnic city parishes, Humanae Vitae, and most recently bishops harboring sex predators in the clergy.
Do we suppose that liturgical reform ameliorated the decline somewhat? I wouldn’t be surprised.
“If it increased the people’s ability to see what was going on, etc. How come less and less Catholics really seem to have any idea what is going on?”
People say this, but I’m not convinced that pre-conciliar Catholics necessarily had superior catechesis.
23 September 2007 at 7:41 pm
Geometry is every where.
Look the Christ Redeemer, Rio de Janeiro and the Flower of Life
Antonio