tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11075162.post2361400385876419052..comments2023-12-22T06:30:40.408-05:00Comments on In Te Speravi: On Mass Versus Populum, and Watching the PriestClaire Christinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00356741555403954008noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11075162.post-50712029152263716822010-02-16T02:38:31.744-05:002010-02-16T02:38:31.744-05:00Unlike what it seems that you describe, I have nev...Unlike what it seems that you describe, I have never had a problem watching the sacred action. None of the arguments AGAINST versus populum have ever really reached me. I didn't really find it an "enclosed circle with no room for God," (although I appreciate the imagery); I didn't see it as a cult of personality; I didn't find the priest distracting; I didn't mind (in the silliest objection I've ever seen) seeing the priest "chewing." That is to say, at least, I didn't mind any of these things so long as it was Fr. Ed or an equally reverent priest offering Mass. The way some priests offer Mass did bother me; but I chalked it up to the priest and not to the orientation of the altar.<br /><br />My attraction to ad orientem was first theological, because I read the Spirit of the Liturgy before I ever went to an ad orientem Mass. <br /><br />But it hardly stopped there. <br /><br />Why is it that I think the reorientation of the altar (along with restoration of the Calendar!!! but that's a different issue) or the two outward liturgical reforms most needed? <br /><br />It comes down, I think, to the experience of worship.<br /><br />Versus populum has its own charm, and I've always appreciated it.* Its success is also its failure, however. Its success is that it makes what's happening at the altar more important. Its failure is that it makes what's happening at the altar more important.<br /><br />The internal structure of the Mass points toward something invisible, that to Whom the Cross on the east wall has united us: the Lord of heaven and our Father. The sacred action, though rightly the focus of much devotion, looses its intrinsic meaning when it becomes devotional. <br /><br />Versus populum tends to make the priest more important, but that is not much of a problem if the priest is fully immersed in Christ. But -- and you may light the stake for my burning once I have said this -- the real problem of versus populum is that it makes the Eucharistic presence of our Lord important in the wrong way. The Mass becomes primarily an act of Eucharistic worship.<br /><br />More theology, right? Not entirely. The thing that attracted me initially to ad orientem worship wasn't the theology. It was the fact that the priest and the people -- Christ the head and Christ the body -- faced the same direction: they faced the Father. It is not too much, I think, to add that Christ sub sacramento also faces the Father in the Mass. <br /><br />The experiential difference between ad orientem and versus populum for me is the difference between my vision stopping AT the altar and my vision passing BEYOND the altar to the throne. <br /><br />I think this is pretty fair and pretty universal. The structure of modern liturgies (not to mention the structure of modern Churches) does not intend to draw the eye "beyond." Even though the prayers still emphasize that our worship is "through with and in" Jesus and toward the Father, I think this is oftentimes lost.<br /><br />Because where the eyes go, there goes the heart also.<br /><br />We can rightly praise versus populum, when rightly done, for inspiring some degree of Eucharistic devotion. We can rightly blame versus populum in almost all cases for destroying some degree of the sacrificial character of the Mass.<br /><br /><br /><br />*The back history of some of the early proponents of versus populum is fascinating. While some of them did it based on a misguided historicism, not all did. The great Pius Parsch, for instance, did it for purely pastoral purposes. I am certainly not immune to the pastoral argument.totustuusmariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459544262379455570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11075162.post-14224624612603873382010-02-11T19:30:04.189-05:002010-02-11T19:30:04.189-05:00This is an example of where I leave behind liturgi...This is an example of where I leave behind liturgical theology as such and back up to coping mechanisms.<br /><br />The theological question, then, turns on how much is <i>reasonable</i> to expect the priest to do. I respectfully decline to venture an answer here just yet.Claire Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00356741555403954008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11075162.post-32423837021030489802010-02-11T14:18:17.174-05:002010-02-11T14:18:17.174-05:00The ars celebrandi of the priest *can* bring rever...The <i>ars celebrandi</i> of the priest *can* bring reverence to a <i>versus populum</i> mass, as can a particular amazing talent for oration, a strong stage presence, etc. The issue with this is that very few men have it in them to do this correctly. A fair number of most excellent priests that can celebrate the OF very, very well come to mind as I read this, but they are sadly the minority. More men are called to the priesthood than have the ability to visibly do these things. I know were I a priest, I'd be a weak orator, in terms of my delivery, and lack the charisma to charm with my presence, and lack the concentration, on most occasions, to block out people I'm looking at. When I serve as an acolyte in the EF, I find it much easier to maintain a fixation on Our Lord than I do in the OF, because during most of the mass, I can only see the people in the corner of my eye, or not at all.Aaron Traashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08583767829520077167noreply@blogger.com