OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 01:53:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: OK here's a puzzle  (Read 8061 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« on: January 22, 2003, 08:05:48 PM »

I'm perplexed, bothered and bewildered. Huh    Huh

Can you solve this for me ?

In the RC Church the Lady Chapel is on the right, Her Statues are on the right [ as you look at the altar that is] The Sacred Heart altar is on the left and any statues of Her Son are on the left.

Now in the East however, Our Lady is on the left and Her Son on the right

So why the difference ?
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2003, 09:34:34 PM »

[Now in the East however, Our Lady is on the left and Her Son on the right

So why the difference ?]

Probably because the Creed states -

And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate
Suffered and was buried
On the third day He arose again according to the Scriptures
And ascended into Heaven
AND SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,724


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2003, 11:31:30 PM »

Of course, such an explanation assumes that the Father stands/is seated on His throne with His "back" facing us.  I've always figured that if priest and people stand in the same orientation offering sacrifice to God, then He is facing our direction.  Or have I been wrong?  

My tendency is to say that the right hand side is the place of honour, and so the Mother of God is to the right of Christ, just as Christ is at the right hand of the Father.  There is a Byzantine icon where Christ is enthroned, and on His right and left there are any number of saints; the Virgin is always at His immediate right.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2003, 12:40:54 AM »

Of course, such an explanation assumes that the Father stands/is seated on His throne with His "back" facing us.  I've always figured that if priest and people stand in the same orientation offering sacrifice to God, then He is facing our direction.  Or have I been wrong?  

My tendency is to say that the right hand side is the place of honour, and so the Mother of God is to the right of Christ, just as Christ is at the right hand of the Father.  There is a Byzantine icon where Christ is enthroned, and on His right and left there are any number of saints; the Virgin is always at His immediate right.  

Why do they always say right hand of God?  Why not the left hand?   Is there something or less correct about being left handed?
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,724


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2003, 01:29:39 AM »

I don't think it's a matter of saying that left handed people are going to be cast down into the black fiery pits of hell to burn and languish for all eternity...it's simply an honour thing.  The right side is considered the place of honour.  In India, unlike in the West, the bride does not stand at the groom's left, but at his right.  If you have a guest of honour, that person is seated at your right.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2003, 04:27:22 AM »

Ah - thanks for the thoughts so far

BUT

I'm still not convinced about anything here  Wink

Let me link a few bits
<<Probably because the Creed states -............
AND SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER>> [Orthodoc]

and
<<Of course, such an explanation assumes that the Father stands/is seated on His throne with His "back" facing us.  I've always figured that if priest and people stand in the same orientation offering sacrifice to God, then He is facing our direction.  Or have I been wrong? >> [ Mor Ephrem]

I realise that 'tradition ' comes into this

and Mor Ephrem also adds <<My tendency is to say that the right hand side is the place of honour, and so the Mother of God is to the right of Christ, just as Christ is at the right hand of the Father.>>

BUT I still am left wondering - any more thoughts to put into the melting pot for me ?
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2003, 09:00:48 AM »

Consider the Deisis on the templon (ikonostas) in an Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic or Coptic church, Slave.

With Christ Pantokrator ("Ruler of All") to the immediate right of the Holy Doors as we face the ikonostas, we see the Most Holy Theotokos, the "Leading Lady," on the immediate left of the Holy Doors as we face the templon (i.e., to our Lord's right, "and the Queen stood at the right....").  She points to her Divine Son, she leads us to Him.  On the other side of Christ, i.e., to our right as we face the templon, and completing the Deisis, is the Holy Glorious Prophet and Foreunner of Christ, John the Baptizer, in an attitude of obeisance to Christ.

In our homes, and especially at our home altars or icon shrines, we duplicate the ancient icon arrangement we see on the templons of our churches, for our homes are "little churches."  Hope this helps.  It has nothing to do with sexism.

Hypo-Ortho

« Last Edit: January 23, 2003, 09:16:15 AM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2003, 10:04:25 AM »

You know I don't intend to be argumentative over this but I think you have missed my point !

Can I go back a bit and ask you to imagine something.

1)  You are in an RC Church [ sorry but you will I hope see why in a minute Wink]

You are facing the altar.

Now on your right is the Lady Altar and on your left is the Sacred Heart Altar.

2)  Now you are standing in an Eastern Catholic  [ or Orthodox ] Church [ OK I know terminology Wink]

You are facing the Iconostasis

On your right is the Icon of Christ  at the right hand  side of the Royal Doors
and at the other side of the Royal Doors - at the left hand side is the Icon of the Theotokos.

Now my question is still - why the difference - you are facing the same way in both scenarios .

I really am trying to understand why
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2003, 10:27:59 AM »

slave, at the Polish RC Church of Our Lady of Czestochowa in Worcester, MA, as you face the altar, the Icon-Shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa is to the *left.*  The Sacred Heart statue is over the tabernacle on the *right.*  So it's not universal in the RC church that the "Lady Chapel" is always on the right as you face the altar.  Btw, they interchanged these shrines in the Worcester church when they turned the main altar around so that Mass could be celebrated facing the people.  So maybe the rule in the RC church is not so hard and fast after all.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2003, 10:50:03 AM »

I really can't think of any RC church that I've ever visited where the situation of the icons/statues of Christ and the Blessed Mother were not the same as on an iconostasis, and I've been to quite a number of Latin churches!!
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2003, 11:07:29 AM »

Mmmmmm

Must go and hunt out some of my photos from my trips to Portugal !

Certainly in the UK on the right, seems to be the norm.

How very interesting.
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,724


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2003, 11:23:30 AM »

Of course, all this assumes that every RC church has a Sacred Heart altar.

In one parish I sometimes visit, an icon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help is on the right as you face the altar.

In another parish, a statue of Our Lady Help of Christians is on the left.

In yet another, Our Lady of Mount Carmel is on the left, and Saint Joseph is on the right, and there is no Sacred Heart.  

In Saint Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, the Lady Chapel is all the way in the back centre of the church.  

In India, one parish I visited had Saint Sebastian on the left, Saint George on the right, and neither Christ nor Mary.  

I don't think there's any universality of practice, either.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2003, 12:23:28 PM »

I dont know what RCC you are referring to, but I have always seen the Blessed Mother's altar on the left hand side, and the altar to St. Joseph the Betrothed on the right hand side.  This is tradition in the RCC as far as I know.  Now, Im coming from what was done for many centuries prior to VatII so goosh knows what the configurations are today. :-  

JoeS

I'm perplexed, bothered and bewildered. Huh    Huh

Can you solve this for me ?

In the RC Church the Lady Chapel is on the right, Her Statues are on the right [ as you look at the altar that is] The Sacred Heart altar is on the left and any statues of Her Son are on the left.

Now in the East however, Our Lady is on the left and Her Son on the right

So why the difference ?
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2003, 01:06:00 PM »

No puzzle — there is no ironclad rule about this form of iconography in RC churches like there is with the iconostasis layout in the Orthodox tradition. I’ve seen images of Our Lady left (Gospel side in good old RC parlance — the side of the altar where the priest read it) and right (Epistle side), of Jesus and Mary, of Mary and Joseph, etc. etc.

I’ve made some nice font changes to several (Faith, Hours) of my pages yesterday and today so those with fully enabled PCs, enjoy!
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2003, 12:06:17 PM »

Dear Slave:

In the local NO Church where I am forced to attend due to the EXTREME distance to a real RC Mass, that is Tridentine, the Lady Altar, St. Joseph Altar, and St. Therese of Lisieux are on the left as  you are facing the High Altar.  To the right of the Altar is the ST. Patrick Altar (this is the patronal Altar of the parish), Sacred Heart Altar, and Sorrowful Mother Altar (Pieta replica).  In the back we have the St. Anthony Altar.  

About 15 miles away is the old Passionist Church which used to be known as "Osage Mission" and is the cradle of the Church for SouthEast Kansas BTW.  Anyway as you face the High Altar in that Chapel, you have the Lady Altar to the left, and another Altar I cannot remember who it is dedicated to though.  Then on the Left side you have the St. Joseph Altar, and another Altar I cannot remember who it is dedicated to either.  Than in back you have the St. Gerard Majella (it is after all a Passionist Church) and the Sacred Heart Altars.

Of course in Mahoney's "Cathedral" there is no statue of Our Lady except for the blaspemous one portraying Our Lady as a militant lesbian over the front door.  

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2003, 01:33:09 PM »

Why are you forced to attend, Joe? I feel the same way you do because I am a Byzantine Catholic, but when I'm away at school I can only go to "NO" parishes. But please don't make the same mistakes I have made and view it as a punishment. There are some people in places like Afghanistan and China who risk their lives just to attend liturgy. They would love to in the comfortable western world we are in. Yes, it is frustrating to see the liturgy not carried out in a proper manner or the sacraments disrespected. But despair only weighs down on our souls because it is sinful. May God bless you!

Matt
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2003, 10:17:09 PM »

JMJ

In China the Liturgical destruction was never truly implemented.  Actually it was and the NO elements of it went into the Chinese Patriotic Church while those elements that were steadfast to teh Traditional Mass, remained in communion.  Coincidence? I think not.

I feel that way because I know the origins of the Novus Ordo mass.  it was composed by 6 Protestant Ministers principally.  Every time I go, I think "why" why did I convert and loose a great deal of my family? why did I loose most of my friends? when this is essentially a Protestant Communion Service*.

*I do hold that the NO is a valid Mass, but it is not as efficacious as the Traditional Mass which is the true form of the Liturgy in the Latin Rite.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2003, 10:48:00 PM »

I can only tell you from my background as a former RC in the 40's, 50's and 60's and that is the Blessed Mother's altar was always on the left hand side of the main altar and St. joseph altar was on the right hand side.  Both side altars contained tabranacles in addition to the main altar.  Memory escapes  me but I know that the Holy Eucharist was placed in the tabranacle of the Blessed Mothers altar at certain times and that during Lent the St. Joseph altar took on a special significance.  To be exact I would need the help of another elder pre-VII RC to refresh my failing memory. :-
JoeS
Logged
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2003, 06:32:45 AM »

Well I am fast coming to the conclusion that in this particular case there is absolutely no hard and fast rule as to which side altars are placed where.

My own Parish is over 100 years old and apart from the moving forward of the Main Altar in accordance with Vat II  no Structural changes apart from the removal of the Gates to the Main Altar - the rails are still there and the gates for the 2 side altars-  were made. It is substantially as it was built .
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2003, 01:12:46 PM »

Quote
My own Parish is over 100 years old and apart from the moving forward of the Main Altar in accordance with Vat II

The truth is Vatican II didn’t mandate that. All it said was that altars should be freestanding, not must (unless the two words mean the same thing, must, in Catholic theology and/or canon law — I don’t think they do).
« Last Edit: February 27, 2003, 01:13:12 PM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2003, 01:23:19 PM »

Quote
My own Parish is over 100 years old and apart from the moving forward of the Main Altar in accordance with Vat II

The truth is Vatican II didn’t mandate that. All it said was that altars should be freestanding, not must (unless the two words mean the same thing, must, in Catholic theology and/or canon law — I don’t think they do).

And of course one can have a freestanding altar and still face the correct way--"towards God"--as we do!

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2003, 01:34:22 PM »

Quote
And of course one can have a freestanding altar and still face the correct way--"towards God"--as we do!

And that may have been what the legitimate liturgical movement in the Roman Rite had in mind. They wanted the altar freestanding so they could walk all the way around it while censing it.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2003, 01:45:44 PM »

The Catholic cathedral here in Montreal has a magnificent free-standing altar.  If the pastor of the only Indult community here in this city were given the privilege to celebrate Mass on that altar, he would have a heart attack.  

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2003, 02:21:23 PM »

Quote
And of course one can have a freestanding altar and still face the correct way--"towards God"--as we do!

And that may have been what the legitimate liturgical movement in the Roman Rite had in mind. They wanted the altar freestanding so they could walk all the way around it while censing it.

But, Serge, as I've observed on TV, even Pope John Paul II celebrates Mass "facing the people" on such a free-standing altar under the magnificent baroque balduchino in St. Peter's Basilica!  And he does it everywhere else "facing the people" on free-standing altars, I've observed, as well.  When the chief liturgist of the Roman Rite does it this way, well, there's an example to follow if one wants to "keep in line" and out of trouble, no?  Or am I missing the point and the discussion is only about free-standing altars, no matter which side of them the priest stands?

Hypo-Ortho

Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2003, 02:30:23 PM »

Quote
But, Serge, as I've observed on TV, even Pope John Paul II celebrates Mass "facing the people" on such a free-standing altar under the magnificent baroque balduchino in St. Peter's Basilica!  And he does it everywhere else "facing the people" on free-standing altars, I've observed, as well.  When the chief liturgist of the Roman Rite does it this way, well, there's an example to follow if one wants to "keep in line" and out of trouble, no?  Or am I missing the point and the discussion is only about free-standing altars, no matter which side of them the priest stands?

I hear he does it the right way at Castelgandolfo (one of his residences in Italy) but I never claimed he did so anywhere else — simply that the legitimate RC liturgical movement (which was a pre-Vatican II phenomenon) had different intentions behind wanting freestanding altars than ‘wreckovators’ 35 years ago and today did or do.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2003, 02:31:40 PM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,724


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2003, 04:38:27 PM »

The Pope celebrates Mass for the vast majority of the year in his private chapel at the Vatican or at his summer residence, and in both, the altar is not freestanding, so he must celebrate "with his back to the people".
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2003, 04:43:50 PM »

The Pope celebrates Mass for the vast majority of the year in his private chapel at the Vatican or at his summer residence, and in both, the altar is not freestanding, so he must celebrate "with his back to the people".  

Probably only because of the size of the chapels therein, Mor, and the "private" nature of such Papal Masses, attendance restricted to a few select members of the Papal household and "by invitation only" to some small number of visiting others, usually dignitaries of some kind.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2003, 07:17:08 PM »

What's the purpose in having so many altars in a church?
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2003, 07:47:13 PM »

Very good question, one which until later years has taken for granted but never questioned.  What is the point, and when did this tradition start in the western church?
JoeS Huh

What's the purpose in having so many altars in a church?
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2003, 07:56:17 PM »

Very good question, one which until later years has taken for granted but never questioned.  What is the point, and when did this tradition start in the western church?
JoeS Huh

What's the purpose in having so many altars in a church?

PRIVATE "Low" Masses without a congregation required or needed to be in attendance, not even an altar boy.  Each priest would do his own silent, mumbled thing at his own preferred altar; it would be "HIS" Mass.  The idea of "liturgy" (work of the people) had somehow gone out the window.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2003, 09:10:03 PM »

Quote
Quote

PRIVATE "Low" Masses without a congregation required or needed to be in attendance, not even an altar boy.  Each priest would do his own silent, mumbled thing at his own preferred altar; it would be "HIS" Mass.  The idea of "liturgy" (work of the people) had somehow gone out the window.

Hypo-Ortho


What a spectacle!
« Last Edit: February 27, 2003, 09:16:43 PM by Frobisher » Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2003, 05:02:05 PM »

JMJ

actually ALL Tridentine Masses except extremely rare cases in Mission Countries which have to have a case by case dispensation from the Pope or Ecclesia Dei Commision REQUIRE and Alcolyte, which is a clerical role.

However their are always and were always people who took matters into their own hands.  

As for the necesity of so many Altars, Concelebrations only happened at Ordinations where the newly ordained would concelebrate with the Bishop as a sign of unity with him.  At no other times did Concelebrations occur, even when a Priest was vested as a Deacon.  This was the ancient practice of the Roman Rite.  In fact by the time of St. Gregory the Great the practice of concelebration had long been suppressed, but it is believed to have been suppressed through organic develpment.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2003, 05:07:46 PM »

here is a post from a list of Traditional Catholic Youth that I moderate:

There's a lot of history here.

First, the development of the Low and High Masses. There are about 5
different "forms" for a TLM celebrated by a Priest, but they are all
basically variations of these two. To start out, it is important to
remember that these are English terms. The proper terms for these two types
of Mass are "Missa Privata" (Private Mass) and "Missa Solemnis" (Solemn
Mass), and that right there tells you a lot about them.

A proper Missa Solemnis is what we refer to in English as a "Solemn High
Mass" - The Priest is served by a Deacon and Subdeacon, incense is used,
everything that is not quiet or silent is chanted, etc. The Missa Solemnis
was the normative form of a Mass with a congregation everywhere up until the
aftermath of the Protestant Revolt (more on that below). It is still
SUPPOSED to be the normative form. (as an aside, one of the supposed goals
of the Liturgical Revolutionaries in the 60s was to eliminate the Low Mass
and make every Mass a Solemn one - but like all of their stated goals, it
turned out to be the opposite of what they actually did). There is one
variation on the Missa Solemnis that I know of, the Missa Cantata. This is
essentially a Missa Solemnis without the Deacon and Subdeacon, and is
usually referred to as a "High Mass" in English.

It is possible that in the beginning, the entire congregation made the
responses along with the Deacon and Subdeacon. However, with the
development of Gregorian Chant, this became somewhat impractical. To give a
modern example, the people at St. Agnes (at the Latin NO) are used to
chanting the Pater Noster along with the Priest. However, they only know
the usual setting. At All Souls, a different setting of chant is used
throughout the Mass. At the Pater Noster then, we have the unfortunate
situation of the Priest and Choir singing one setting and the people singing
another. It's pretty awful. Now, in the TLM, the Pater Noster is never
sung, but there are many other parts that are, and some of them can change
quite a bit, depending on the solemnity of the feastday and other
considerations. Therefore, the practice developed of having a choir drawn
from the congregation, stationed with the congregation in the Nave (usually
in a loft), and trained to make the proper responses in the proper settings,
on the part of the congregation.

A proper Missa Privata is just that - private. It is said by a Priest with
one server (who says the responses quietly) and no congregation (aside from
the Saints and Angels, of course). Why have a private form of the Mass? In
the West, concelebration was suppressed pretty early on, but Priests were
also required to say Holy Mass once a day. Private Mass was the solution,
and a pretty good one, as it meant that the Holy Sacrifice was offered in
propitiation for the sins of the world quite a bit more often than it is
today. After the Protestant Revolt, Catholics in many areas were persecuted
and driven "underground." When you are hiding from the authorities, it
tends to be inadvisable to have nice, loud Solemn Masses. Therefore, the
practice developed of having the Priest say a Missa Privata with a
congregation (As a sidenote, the Irish would often have Masses underneath a
tavern or hall where some "lookouts" would be dancing that "Riverdance" type
of folk dance. If they saw the authorities coming, they would change the
dance and "tap" a message to the congregation below to hide the Priest).
After centuries of having silent Low Masses and no other external signs of
Faith, the Irish and English Catholics tended to view singing, processions,
religious festivals, etc., as "Anglican." It is also important to point out
that even while this was going on, the normative form of Mass in the
Catholic countries remained the Missa Solemnis, and even the missionaries of
the 15th and 16th Centuries were celebrating the Missa Solemnis with as much
splendor as possible in the wilds of South America, Africa, and Asia.

Obviously, there was originally no congregation and thus no response from
them. Equally obvious, the congregation would not be making responses out
loud when they were trying to celebrate the Holy Mass in secret. However,
two developments occurred. One is that "Low Masses" began to be celebrated
- though not as the norm - in the Catholic countries as well. There are
many reasons for this, but the primary ones are time and effort. It takes a
lot less effort to celebrate a Low Mass, and it takes less time, which can
be a valid concern if you have a huge parish and need to cram enough Holy
Masses for them into Sunday Morning (before Pius XII, you could not start a
Holy Mass after 12 Noon). This often happened in America, which brings us
to the second development. After English won out against German to be the
national language of the US, and many persecuted Catholics began streaming
into America (out of the frying pan?), one group of immigrants became
incredibly powerful and more or less ruled the Church in America - the
Irish. This was due largely to their native command of English, and the
fact that with the huge amounts of immigrants during the Famine, they were
often the largest ethnic group among US Catholics.

Now, in England, the restored Hierarchy of 1850 was led by Nicholas Cardinal
Wiseman, who grew up in Spain, was an Italianophile, and loved Solemnity.
This caused a lot of friction with the Catholics who tended to view
solemnity as Anglican, but both traditions ended up being preserved in
English Catholicism (until, of course, 1962). In America, however, there
was no Cardinal Wiseman. The Irish Bishops more or less made the Low Mass
the norm, and tended to view other ethnic parishes - with their Solemn
Masses and Processions and Sermons in "foreign languages" - as somewhat
suspicious (for the worst example of this, look into the Archbishop Ireland
/ Alexis Toth affair - Ireland was basically responsible for a huge schism
and the foundation of the "Orthodox (schismatic) Church of America"). Added
to this official disdain was the problem of numbers. There were so many
Catholics that Churches could not be built fast enough, and therefore the
existing Churches had huge parishes. With only so much time between 4am
(when some of the big city parishes would have their first Mass) and Noon,
Low Masses were relied upon because they were quick - especially if you drop
the Sermon (remember also that before Pope St. Pius X, most people did not
receive Communion every Sunday).

Low Masses are beautiful in their simplicity and silence, but they are
definitely not as pleasing to the senses as a Solemn Mass - especially if
you were from a Catholic country and were used to solemnity! The first
adaptation of the Low Mass was the "4 hymns." To add some music to the
Mass, hymns were sung for the procession/prayers at the foot of the altar;
the Offertory; the Communion; and the recession. The problem with this
approach is that music should not just be in the Liturgy for decoration;
music is properly a part of Holy Mass. Pope St. Pius X made this point in
"Tre La Solicitudino." Therefore, if you are going to sing something during
Holy Mass, sing the propers! This led to two further developments. The
first is the "Sung Low Mass" in which the Priest does not chant anything,
but the Choir sings the propers. The second is the dialogue Mass, where the
people make (or more to the point, attempt to make) the responses of the
server. There are many problems with this - a lot of the same problems that
led to the development of the Choir in the Solemn Mass. The average
parishioner is not going to know Latin. He may have a Missal, but Latin
pronunciation can not be learned by a Missal alone. The result of a
dialogue Mass is what we have at the Indult here - 20 to 30 people trying to
make the responses and instead making a garbled mess.

The solution to all of this is simple. Solemn Mass should be the norm, and
the people who want to make responses should join the choir. Then the
Solemn Masses will be properly sung, and the Low Masses will be properly
silent. Both traditions can exist side-by-side, but they really shouldn't
be joined.



Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2003, 05:29:49 PM »

It still appears as quite a mess from the outside-of-Rome persepective, Joe.

At my step-grandfather's funeral in a pre-Vatican II Polish RC church, three requiem Masses for his soul were celebrated simultaneously (a common abuse of the time: more stipends!).  It was hard to concentrate on the silent "Private" Low Masses (*without* altar boys!) at the two side altars while a High Mass (Missa Cantata) was being sung aloud in Latin at the main altar (with only the organist giving the sung responses, no choir), and the non-Catholics present were totally confused.  The explanation: Three Masses are better than one!

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2003, 05:39:36 PM »

I'm not sure what the obsession is with the Tridentine mass among "Traditional" Roman Catholics.

The only Tridentine mass I have been to consisted of whispers and people with their heads dug in missals. I couldn't hear the priest as half the liturgy was performed silently. It was frankly rather boring.

I really don't see the appeal, If I was forced with the option I  would rather go to a Novus Ordo mass that is celebrated reverently than a Tridentine mass.

Anyway, might I remind you JoeZ that this is an Orthodox forum, and the topic of your posts should tie into Orthodoxy somehow.

Thanks,
Bobby


Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2003, 05:45:52 PM »

Bobby<<Anyway, might I remind you JoeZ that this is an Orthodox forum, and the topic of your posts should tie into Orthodoxy somehow.>>

Thanks for this reminder, Bobby, because sometimes I'm just as guilty of it as JoeZ, *AND I'M ORTHODOX* (but with many RC relatives)!  Sorry for when I go astray.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!  <bowing low and asking for the forum's forgivenesss>

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2003, 05:49:55 PM »

hahahah no problem, I do it too Smiley
Logged
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2003, 05:53:29 PM »

"The Latin Mass magazine, one of the finest of the new publications on the market, is on the cutting edge of Catholic traditionalism, and is must reading for those who cherish the Church we grew up in. Buy, read it, send it to a brother or sister in the catacombs." -Patrick J. Buchanan

 Huh  Huh  Huh
« Last Edit: February 28, 2003, 05:54:30 PM by Frobisher » Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2003, 05:57:12 PM »

Frobisher...

You and your Latin Mass magazine...
Do you still receive that in the mail?

Bobby
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2003, 05:57:24 PM »

That was the "Low Mass" Bobby. The "High Mass" is a much more beautiful thing than the Novus Ordo. Of course they say it takes 6 times going before you get the entire concept of these Masses too.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2003, 05:58:38 PM »

Nice posting, Joe (some of the ideas seem to come from Thomas Day), but I agree it doesn’t really fit here. It belongs on the York Forum. This place is about Byzantine (Orthodox and Catholic), Oriental and Assyrian rites.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2003, 06:01:10 PM »

Quote
The only Tridentine mass I have been to consisted of whispers and people with their heads dug in missals. I couldn't hear the priest as half the liturgy was performed silently. It was frankly rather boring.

The Divine Liturgy contains a great number of silent prayers by the priest and (alas!) it is often not said in vernacular in America.  Just be careful not to judge them for things we do!
Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2003, 06:02:12 PM »

Silent prayers are a clericalization that should be removed. At my Orthodox parish the priest recites all the anaphoral prayers out loud.

Bobby
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2003, 06:32:17 PM »

Robert, they are called secret prayers for a reason. I've never read anything instructing or allowing them to be read allowed.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2003, 06:34:35 PM »

sorry, I was trying to respond to statements that were made.  (stiking breast) mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.  however many of these actually do apply as well to WR Orthodoxy.

now I am very sorry, but I must in good conscience respond to a few statements that have been made:

Hypo Ortho:  Saying Mass without an Alcolyte was a Liturgical abuse.  The Alcolyte was actually a clerical role and the "altar Boy" was an exception to the canonical rule.  The very rubrics indicate that an Alcolyte is needed.  For instance to take the Missal from the Epistle Side to the Gospel side.

H-O:  three requims instead of one:  Concelebrations were an excommunicatable offense in the Latin Rite.  If you are in such a situation again, focus on the Missa Cantata or Missa Solesmes at the High Altar and treat the Missa Privata at the side Altars as just that, the Priest and Alcolytes Private prayer to God.  Many old HandMissals also contained hints for assisting at more than one Mass simultaneously.

Bobby:  Silent Masses can provide an excelent way in which to contemplate the divine and really focus on the Mass.  

Serge:  I only posted it here in an attempt to answer some statements that were made.  I would only post it at the York Forum if similar statements were made.

Nickolas:  I got it down after two visits.  Of course I had been watching the Latin Mass videos for over a year and a halph.Smiley

Frobisher et Bobby:  LMM is actually a VERY good publication fighting against the errors in the current RCC, at least it was 9 months ago when my subscription lapsed.  However they are too eager to cave.  I think Remnant Magazine is better.  I remember their seemed to be some concern a while back about Fr. Mclucas' article on the "Emasculation of the Priesthood" which is a fantastic expose of the feminazi plot to get women ordained and failing that to get rid of the Priesthood altogether.  However the Byzantine Tradition of married clergy, etc. is openly acknowledged in the footnotes it is not spoken of in the main body as it is not comparable to the venerable Western Traditions.  

Bobby:  Our "obsession" is with decent Liturgy, Catholic Faith, and Godward Worship.  Our "obsession" is not with happy clappy sing and dance heretical services passing for a Catholic Mass in most Catholic Churches.  To see what I am talking about go to novusordowatch.org/archive.html

Sorry to go on and on about this, but when ones faith is being literally destroyed from within you have a tendency to be on the defensive.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Tags: architecture customs 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.125 seconds with 72 queries.