To some readers of Pray Tell it might seem eyebrow-raising to be addressing this issue in the summer of 2012. But some of our friends continue to assert that we regular celebrators of the OF are laboring under a massive misunderstanding of the implementation documents of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.<\/p>\n
So let’s look at this issue again.<\/p>\n
IGMR 2000 299. Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod<\/strong> expedit ubicumque possibile sit. Altare eum autem occupet locum, ut revera centrum sit ad quod totius congregationis fidelium attentio sponte convertatur. De more sit fixum et dedicatum.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The quod<\/em> in bold is the subject of the following discussion.\u00a0I’ve also italicized the words that differ in the various \u00a0translations. “Quod\u00a0expedit ubicumque possibile sit”<\/em> first appears in the 1975 text.<\/p>\n [GIRM 2011 final translation] 299. The altar should be built separate<\/em> from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.<\/p>\n Moreover,<\/em> the altar should occupy a place where it is truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar should<\/em> usually be<\/em> fixed and dedicated.<\/p>\n [GIRM 2002 provisional translation] 299. The altar should be built apart<\/em> from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed<\/em> as to be<\/em> truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is usually<\/em> fixed and is dedicated.<\/p>\n [GIRM 262 in the 1975 edition]. The altar should be built\u00a0apart<\/em>\u00a0from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.<\/strong> The altar should, moreover, be so placed<\/em>\u00a0as to be<\/em>\u00a0truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is\u00a0usually<\/em>\u00a0fixed and is dedicated.<\/p>\n [GIRM 262 in the 1969 edition]. The altar should be built\u00a0apart<\/em>\u00a0from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people.The altar should, moreover, be so placed<\/em>\u00a0as to be<\/em>\u00a0truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is\u00a0usually<\/em>\u00a0fixed and is dedicated.<\/p>\n About the two comments of Father Pasley that follow, I regret that the software of Pray Tell<\/em> did not let Father Pasley italicize what he wanted to emphasize, something he said he added to one or more of the passages he quotes. “BLS” is Built of Living Stones.<\/em> I could not find the post that Father Pasley cites but I did find this\u00a027 April 2006 post<\/a> on\u00a0Fr. John Zulzdorf’s Blog \u2013 What Does The Prayer Really Say?<\/a> [WDTPRS, mentioned below]. The following posts are my guess at how Father Pasley would have posted if he had all the WordPress posting tools at his command.<\/p>\n #9 by Fr. Robert C Pasley, Chaplain CMAA on July 15, 2102,\u00a0at 7:32 A.M.<\/strong><\/p>\n Dear Dr. Ford, \u2028Thanks for your comments on my post. I will respond to different comments separately. I would like to immediately draw your attention to the fact that facing the people at the altar is not preferred. The translation of GIRM 299 is faulty. I quote from an article posted by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf:<\/p>\n In the National Catholic Register<\/em> of 7-14 April 2002, a statement was made that, according to the new GIRM, it is now preferable to celebrate Mass \u201cfacing the people.\u201d If the Register is making this mistake, it would appear that there was some serious damage caused from the mistranslation of #299 used by the bishops. Let us look at #299. The last time we examined it at length was in the third article of WDTPRS for the 2nd Sunday of Advent in the year 2000:<\/p>\n Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.<\/em><\/p>\n The English version in BLS (above) is faulty. The translator failed to see that quod<\/em> refers back to the main clause of the sentence. The bishops\u2019 translator fell into the common trap of translating the Latin word by word, rather than reading the whole sentence. Their translator made #299 read as if there is a preference or even a requirement in the law itself to celebrate Mass facing the people. But #299 indicates nothing of the kind. That paragraph really says:<\/p>\n \u2028The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out. (Emphases added)<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2028I will continue in another post.<\/p>\n Paul Ford interjects here: Am I the only reader to find ironic Fr.\u00a0Zuhlsdorf’s complaint, “The bishops\u2019 translator fell into the common trap of translating the Latin word by word, rather than reading the whole sentence”? This is ironic on two counts: Word by word translation seems to be the order of the decade (Liturgiam authenticam<\/em> is dated 28 March 2001); and\u00a0Fr.\u00a0Zuhlsdorf’s translation interprets the clause\u00a0quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit<\/em> as a relative adjective clause introduced by the relative pronoun quod,<\/em> when the clause could just as well be a relative clause\u00a0introduced by the conjunction<\/strong>\u00a0quod,\u00a0<\/em>subordinating what follows (quod\u00a0expedit ubicumque possibile sit)<\/em> to the entire sentence that precedes (Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit). <\/em>And this is the way the ICEL translated it in 2002 and agin in 2011. On such a neuralgic issue would ICEL not<\/em> correct our misunderstanding? Father Pasley continues:<\/p>\n #10 by Fr. Robert C Pasley, Chaplain CMAA on July 15, 2012, at 7:34 A.M.<\/strong><\/p>\n The quote [from Father Zuhlsdorf]\u00a0continues:<\/p>\n This paragraph explains the distance of separation from the wall: at least far enough so that it can be used from either side, rather than just an inch or two of separation. The Latin doesn\u2019t even hint that Mass must be said versus populum.<\/em> It only provides that it can be. And that is not an absolute, either. What makes this very troubling is that on 25 September 2000 the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments issued a clarification (Prot. No. 2036\/00\/L) regarding #299 in the new Latin GIRM. That clarification says:<\/p>\n The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani<\/em> constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem<\/em> [facing the apse] is to be excluded. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:<\/strong><\/p>\n Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit<\/em> does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum<\/em> (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit<\/em> (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Not only is Ad Populum<\/em> not preferred, but the rubrics in the missal infer that the priest is facing the altar and tells him to turn towards the people.<\/p>\n I am sure that Father Pasley means that he\u00a0infers<\/em> that the rubrics imply<\/em> that\u00a0the priest is facing the altar and tells him to turn towards the people.<\/p>\n It is true that the Order of Mass says the priest turns toward\/facing the people (ad populum [con]versus)<\/em>\u00a0six times (\u00a71, \u00a729, \u00a7127, \u00a7132, \u00a7139, and \u00a7141).<\/p>\n But in \u00a71 the presider is standing at the chair; in \u00a729 he has just returned from the side of the altar; in\u00a0\u00a7127 and \u00a7132 he has been addressing the Lord Jesus; \u00a7139 he has just moved from a seating position to standing at the chair or at the altar; and \u00a7141 he turns his attention from listening to any announcements to giving the final blessing.<\/p>\n In Fr. Uwe Michael Lang\u2019s\u00a0Turning Toward The Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer<\/em> (San Francisco, Ignatius, 2004), there is a preface by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. \u00a0Cardinal Ratzinger commented about the translation of paragraph 299 that\u00a0\u201cthe word \u2018expedit<\/em>\u2018 (\u2018is desirable\u2019) did not imply an obligation, but only made a suggestion\u201d (9\u201310). A suggestion about what? The CDWDS gives five examples: (1)\u00a0“It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall” and (2\u20135) “The phrase\u00a0ubi possibile sit<\/em>\u00a0(where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.”<\/p>\n What is<\/em> desirable and preferred? That\u00a0the wise presider get himself out of the way by directing his attention to the assembly, to the word, to what he is doing, and to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and that every other minister and the entire assembly be similarly focussed (cf.\u00a0Fergus Kerr, O.P., “Liturgy and Impersonality” New Blackfriars<\/em> 52 (1971).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n To some readers of Pray Tell<\/I> it might seem eyebrow-raising to be addressing this issue in the summer of 2012. But some of our friends continue to assert that we regular celebrators of the OF are laboring under a massive misunderstanding of the implementation documents of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.<\/p>\n So let’s look at this issue again.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":34,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1398,28,30,24],"tags":[1612,69,180,2099,2102],"class_list":["post-15613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-new-missal-implementation","category-pope-benedict-xvi","category-reform-of-the-reform","category-translation-new-missal","tag-ad-orientem","tag-cmaa","tag-fr-z","tag-fr-robert-c-pasley","tag-fr-uwe-michael-lang"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"