Archbishop Koch Sacrosanctum Concilium meant Mass ad orientem and in Latin

From: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

Excerpt of an interview granted by the new President of the Pontifical Council for
Promoting Christian Unity, Archbishop Kurt Koch, to Gaudium Press:

All those things that some people say that was new after the Second Vatican Council were not a theme of the Constitution on the Liturgy [Sacrosanctum Concilium]. For instance, celebrating the Eucharist facing the faithful was never an object of Tradition. The Tradition had always meant celebrating facing East, because that was the position of the resurrection. In Saint Peter’s Basilica, the celebration took place facing the people for a long time because that was the direction facing East. The second thing was the vernacular language. The Council wished that Latin remain the language of the liturgy.

Yet all those very deep, fundamental, things of the liturgical Constitution, are still ignored by many. For instance, the entire liturgy and the Paschal liturgy. The Easter of mystery, of death, and of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. One cannot celebrate the Paschal [mystery] without sacrifice, and that is the theme that is mentioned in theology. Because the Constitution on revelation [Dei Verbum] is not yet known in the Church either. We still have much to do in order to receive the Council.

I agree with this. unfortunately, the “spririt of VII”, liturigsts people believe that
the liturgy is their “play thing” and they can do whatever they want because VII to them meant change.

The time to correct all this was 40 years ago when it started spin out of control. It is going to be very difficult and painful for the Church to rein in all the excesses at this point but I sincerely hope it happens.

I wish the Pope would simply require all liturgies to be said the Tridentine Latin way and be done with it.
Our Church goes through a trial, perhaps this occurred though so that those who are wolves would be revealed to us, so that we could subsequently purge ourselves of them.

I’m always surprised how people can call versus populum “playing with the Liturgy” when it’s a perfectly legitimate option (unless the bishop says otherwise). Next people will accuse priests of “playing with the Mass” because they chose EP III instead of EP I. Oh wait, people already do. :frowning:

That’s very unlikely. If that were to happen, you’d see the biggest schism since the Orthodox one, and I don’t think the Church would ever want that to happen.

It would have been less confusing if St Peter’s was built so all faced east. :frowning:

But if they had turned the pews that way everyone would have had their backs to the priest.:wink:

The altar would have had to be moved too.

But if they had turned the pews that way everyone would have had their backs to the priest.;)The altar would have had to be moved too.
[/quote]

Actually, I believe the reason is the confesio. As an aside, it’s interesting to note that the choir (meaning the stalls for the Chapter) are between the High Altar and the apse, whereas they are usually in the chancel between the High Altar and the nave. Those who are in the choir stalls experience Mass ad orientem.

the Byzantine Rite offers DL in english. i wonder why the Latin Rite would insist in going back to purely Latin. i highly doubt it will happen as well but in any case i’m prepared. i’ll apply for a canonical transfer of Rites to the UGCC (Byzantine). i wouldn’t go into schism personally.

although another option is if the Anglican Use will be allowed in more areas than it is today. perhaps after TAC is accepted into full communion

While I prefer the EF myself, I don’t think I’d want that. If their hearts aren’t into it they’ll figure out a way to sabotage it. Let’s be careful for what we wish.

That said, it wouldn’t hurt to try a little discipline first. Say, like restore the 3 hour fast before communion. Maybe then people wouldn’t be so casual with the sacrament.

VII Liturgy is not the “play thing” of any particular group. If any of the readers knew the liturgy BEFORE VII you’d know that people needed to know how to read the missal (if you did not read and/or couldn’t buy one) tough. Since people did NOT understand what the priest was saying the thing to do was to keep busy with devotiionals, above all, the Rosary. Let’s understand that Holy Scripture readings (letters, gospel…) are to be PROCLAIMED, NOT READ. Let’s remember that Pope John XXIII wanted to OPEN the windows of the Church and let the Holy Spiritu in. Don’t forget that a large number of "Catholics"in the world are NOT educated on the faith and even less on Liturgy. My brothers and sisters: let’s take our faith to as many people as possible. Liturgy is not the “play thing” EVEN THOUGH there have been and ARE many that are doing that. We need to be more PASTORAL and as our Holy Father said a few days ago to priests: we have to be missionaries.
Let’s keep praying.
Ed

So whats it mean if one cant read the current missal today?

Everyone there experiences the mass ad orientem, which translates to “towards the East”, that is the priest celebrates facing east.

It just happens that in St Peters, ad orientem is also versus populum.

I see that word used so often and ambiguously. What concepts, specifically, do you understand “pastoral” to comprise? What does it mean to be “more pastoral”? As opposed to what?

Etymologically, “pastoral” means “of or in the character of shepherds or shepherding.” But I do not get the sense that people who talk about a need to be “pastoral” are exhorting the bishops to use their staffs more readily.

According to at least one scholar (Fr Uwe Lang), they did. :thumbsup:

In former times the congregation in St Peter’s (and other churches with the altar at the west end) would face east with the priest. For the first part of the Mass the priest would face the people - i.e. for the readings and homily he would be facing east while the people would be facing west. At the beginning of the liturgy of the Eucharist the people would be told to turn to the Lord (“conversi ad Dominum”), and all would turn to face the east…so the result was that the people were actually facing the back of the church and the priest was celebrating Mass behind them all. Praying while facing east was an integral part of worship for the entire congregation, not just the priest.

Buffalo commented earlier that the whole issue would be less confusing if St Peter’s was built so all faced east. I think that’s certainly true to an extent, given that what happens in St Peter’s is often taken as the model for other churches…and when people see the Mass in St Peter’s versus populum many will automatically assume that that’s the way it’s supposed to be done, without looking into the history of why it’s done. I wonder would it ever be an option to celebrate Mass in St Peter’s with the celebrant and the people facing the same direction - i.e. west, but using (as per Pope Benedict’s suggestion) the Crucifix as the point of “orientation”…after all, there is no problem with that setup in other churches.

Maybe we’d get better results if they used border collies :smiley:

I do not eat breakfast and I go to mass at 8:00am Sunday mornings. What now???

You get a red star to put on your nameplate. :wink:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.