Catholic Online Forum

With ad orientem liturgicum, the big wall crucifix with the tabernacle right beneath it becomes the common focus for both the celebrant and the congregation during the Eucharistic celebration. However, for some reasons the de facto norm throughout the Church today seems to be versus populum celebration. I would like to hear a good historical explanation why and how this change was made, and the theological reasons behind it.

As it is now, in most churches I have been to, the only visible crucifix is the big wall crucifix behind the altar. This obviously cannot be a common focus during versus populum celebrations since the celebrant is facing the other way. But even as a congregant, I find it psychologically unlogical to focus on the crucifix behind the altar while the sacrifice is being re-enacted on the altar in front of it. And if you are not focusing and contemplating on the crucifix during the Eucharistic celebration, what is it really for?

The best way would obviously be to do as the pope does and put a big crucifix on the center of the altar itself. However, if you already have a big crucifix on the wall behind, wouldn't two visible crosses diminish the symbolism? And even if the altar crucifix is the only visible one, there is no way for the celebrant and the congregation to focus on the same corpus of the crucifix if they are facing different ways.

I really want to accept the fact that versus populum is the setting most commonly used today and that the altar according to the GIRM should be freestanding, so I would be glad to hear som good explanations why it has become so.

JMJ

"Ahlman",

there is an ongoing debate on the liturgical orientation, especially since it was never mandated by Vatican II nor was the orientation implied by the reformed Missal of Paul VI. The liturgical orientation is perhaps the most important issue of the whole liturgical debate toady, because the theology behind the current situation is often far form the mind of the Church.

But since generations have now grown up and lived with this arrangement it would be uncharitable and counterporductive to turn back all altars overnight and do to today's faithful what was done to yesterday's: a committee of "experts" shoving down the throat of the universal Church their own protestantized vision of liturgy.

The best source to begin a study of this issue is J. Ratzinger's The Spirit of the Liturgy and then Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy and antyhting by Fr. Uwe-Michel Lang, especially his Turning Towards the Lord .

Here's chapter three of J. Ratzinger's The Spirit of the Liturgy: The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer

se also his foreword to Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer here: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features ... _may05.asp

For Ratzinger on liturgy in general see our Library viewtopic.php?f=201&t=54288

-----------------------------------
as a member since 2006, you should by now know that our ruels require that all posts be signed with some real name. Knidly comply with this rule. Thanks!

_________________
FabrizioParty like it's 1773

No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI)

Fabrizio,



It will be more uncharitable and counterproductive for a mistake to be left uncorrected.



Not only will it be charitable to my generation to correct it now, it will also be an act of justice and a great consolation.

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

JMJ

Marie,

I used the term "overnight" for a reason. Of course the error has to be corrected, but it has to be done in a way that will work and last. You cannot give a patient a dose of medicine that'll kill him. Many perfectly orthodox Catholics who have no idea of the liturgical debate would fell treated like idiots and heretics if we turned ALL altars OVERNIGHT, without having the same power the "open-minded" ones had when they did the same to impose their errors. And, even with the same power, that's now how the Church has to work. While I am convinced - and so is the Pope, which is a tad more important - that the orientation of altar is - literally - the crux of the problem, the strategic victory from which all the rest will flow, things are such now that even many among the good guys would have a hard time understanding it if it were done the way modernists prefer: with arrogance and no right to even ask for an explanation.

That's why the Pope inisists so much on what so many among the (luckily aging and decreasing ignorant/rebellious part of the ) clergy are simply refusing to do: study what the Church teaches, teach and practice what they are supposed to have studied and learned. People will understand the end of errors when they'll understand why they are even errors. The Pope is teaching his Curia how things are done. Some begin to do the same with their staff and so on down to the last parish of St. XYW of Who-knows-where. It may take forever, it might suddenly escalate to a general and autheintc reform of the Church as the Council wanted it. We don't know. Let the Lord multiply fish and loaves.

...and pray for the Holy Father!

_________________
FabrizioParty like it's 1773

No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI)

Ahlman,

I would like to point out that the crucifix is a symbol, a work of art. While it is important, it is not Jesus Christ. Christ is present in the Eucharist. The priest celebrating the mass is in persona Christi. Christ is also present in the assembly. The mass will still be valid even if, for some reason, the crucifix is absent.

I do not believe I have made any theological misstatements, but of course I am open to correction by those more knowledgeable.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx