Re. St. Peter's and other Roman basilicas. There is no indult to "face the people", as no indult is needed. The Pope does, and always has, celebrated Mass ad Orientem at the high altar of the basilica---the door is at the East end, the apse in the West; therefore, the Pope prays ad Orientem, versus populum; rather than the more common ad Orientem, versus apsidem.

Close, but no cigar. At the important parts, in the scenario you describe, the entire congregation turned and faced East. On this see Ratzinger, Louis Bouyer, and Uwe Michael Lang.

Close, but no cigar. At the important parts, in the scenario you describe, the entire congregation turned and faced East. On this see Ratzinger, Louis Bouyer, and Uwe Michael Lang.

In the early days of the original basilica, yes; they all turned to face East. But I highly doubt that all were still turning to face East, to open doors or not, when Mass was celebrated at the High Altar in the post-Tridentine period. Also, it doesn't matter what way the people face at this point or that: the point is the celebrant does not change his orientation: the Pope celebrates "To the East, facing the people" (whether they face him or not is inconsequential to his basic posture); rather than "To the East, facing the apse".

At the important parts, in the scenario you describe, the entire congregation turned and faced East. On this see Ratzinger, Louis Bouyer, and Uwe Michael Lang.

This is simply a speculative point that Bouyer made--based on little to no evidence--and Ratzinger and Lang picked up on (i.e. these are not three scholars looking separately at the evidence and reaching the same conclusion; it is one scholar making a guess and two others repeating it on his authority). The fact it, we have no idea which way the people faced in St. Peter's. And if Bouyer's suggestion is correct, then we have a scenario in which, at the climactic moment in the eucharistic liturgy, the people turned their backs on the altar. Anything is possible, I guess, but this seems to me pretty unlikely.

There's nothing wrong with the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated reverently ...

And there's nothing wrong with getting "C" grades in school.

But what if you're easily capable of "A" work?

The term "settle" comes to mind here.

Seems you are mixing arguments for or against the Novus Ordo with statements made by Gamber in his book, "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background."

Keep in mind there was no Novus Ordo of Paul VI during the time the old St. Peter's was standing. However, there was no Tridentine Mass either.

Gamber states: "In the basilicas that had an apse facing East and also had several side naves, the faithful would, at least originally, stand in the side naves and also in the rear part of the center nave. In this way, they formed a semi-circle open towards the East, with the celebrant standing at the center of the (imaginary) full circle." Gamber, p. 162.

there has been a centuries old insult

I have to think that this is a typo for "indult".

Re: my much earlier comment, charlesw you surely could have figured out insult=indult. (Thank you autocorrect.)

If I had a nickel for very time my computer or iPad automatically changed a Catholic liturgical term I could buy my church a new pipe organ.

I think it's going to be a mess for a good long while yet. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next few generations and papacies.

What possible advance to our faith comes from our arguing and posturing us against them in tiny little fortresses that are built of sand? If

I don't think we are arguing, merely researching the past drawing on the best scholarship available. There are many who will believe almost anything not knowing any better. Research is good and it leads to knowledge.

Maybe it is human nature, but many will believe that because their grandparents did things a certain way, that is the way it always was and should be. Not so. Even holy things can be corrupted over time. That happens in all fields, not just religion.

When people in the congregation become obsessed with things and ritual actions, yet have little understanding of the theology and intent behind those things and actions, it becomes an issue. It happens and I have seen it more than I would have liked.

I guess my experience is just about the opposite - that people dismiss things and ritual actions as "mere externals" with lilttle understanding the theology and intent behind those things and actions. It happens and I have seen it more than I would have liked.

These are not mutually exclusive: The former applies to traditionalists, the latter to modernists, but both have in common that they do not understand the relation between liturgy and theology, and are not interested in learning.
And far too often, those who are trying to teach are viewed as "confusing the people" and creating 'unnecessary' upstir.

"Ad orientem versus populum" is now limited to Rome in practice, but it wasn't always so. In the Carolingian era and during some time after it, some churches were built with two apses, at the eastern and western ends of the building. On some special occasions, the priest celebrated at the western apse, in imitation of Roman ceremonies. There are still some buildings built for the practice in Germany, Belgium and Eastern France. The practice itself died at some point during the Romanesque era.

It's the preferred position so as to avoid the risk of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament in those "well before the Council situations. The whole building says "God lives here". If the building itself says "Maybe he lives here, and maybe he doesn't" means that a side chapel is preferred so as not to disturb the community atmosphere of the place.

Cathedrals often function as public buildings and concert venues. They are not strictly parish churches and often do promote other activities besides Masses. Some of the historic cathedrals have nearly constant tour groups passing through. Better the sacrament be in a chapel, if possible.

In the nearby parish the Blessed Sacrament is kept in a lovely cozy side chapel...accessible only by traipsing through the sanctuary past the altar - a completely silly place to put it. People traipse right on through during Mass, sneaking around behind the extra chairs in that bent-over position people use when trying not to be seen.

I'm convinced one of the main purposes of Mass is to teach one to keep ones eyes to oneself. There are so many opportunities... and I am not very good at it.

Scholars have spoken about this very point. We don't have to accept their conclusions, but we have to admit they have spoken to this point explicitly

I don't disagree. My point was that as far as I know (and I am willing to be corrected on this) the remarks of all of the scholars who speak to this point can be traced back to a claim made by Louis Bouyer, for which he did not really provide any evidence. So it gives the impression of a broad agreement on how the evidence should be read, but in fact it is everyone appealing to the same authority. This is a very common phenomenon is scholarly debates. It doesn't mean that Bouyer or those who appeal to him are wrong; it does mean that it is more an argument from authority than one based on evidence.

"The Mass has changed over time" yes, including the Tridentine Mass. The placing of a tabernacle at the back of the high altar is a post Trent innovation. And the only significant change to the rubrics, before the middle of the last century, was neccessitated by the introduction of the tabernacle, an innovation resisted by the Vatican for half a century.

I have heard that the Hanging Pyx / Tabernacle was an English (Sarum?) invention...

blissfully unaware that Trent and innovation were very often the best of bedfellows

Other than the introduction of Seminaries... and the codification of the Missal of the Canons of Rome as a universal Missal, Could you please list the innovations and give the reference to the decree.

I don't think that Trent advocated the use of the venacular....I always have to chuckle when someone drags out the documents of Trent. Those who do often say things like "Theses canons are still in effect" or "The church never changes and still holds to these principals" Really? All you have to do is look at the canon which states "Any priest who recites the Mass in a venacular language, let him be anathama"

Correction: it was communion from the chalice that was permitted in those region. Trent finessed somewhat on the vernacular, and left room open for development on that point.

The Canons on the vernacular were worded so as not to condemn, St Cyril and Methodious... So the Mass could be in Greek, Latin (once the vulgar tongue) and the various languages of the other Catholic Rites.

@Liam, could you please give examples of the 'Centralisation' of Europe post Trent. My small knowledge of European history would have the first example of European Centralisation in the reign of Napoleon. I will accept that the protestant revolt, caused a more uniform rejection of the mediaeval system, and this went hand in hand with the loss of the ancient local Proper calendars, and local variations to the Roman Rite.

@MJO If it were not for Henry VIII falling in to grave sexual sin, and founding the 'first church of the obese polygamist', our beloved Sarum Use would still be used today in England, I am also sure that the Uses of Hereford and York etc. would also still be around, no Canon in Trent would have had any effect to their continuation. I am sure that the new Seminaries in England would have used the Sarum, rather than Roman Missal.

the suppression of all but a few local rites and uses,

I still wonder how many local Rites and Usages were suppressed by Trent's 200? year rule, in any case they would have been relatively modern, and I am sure that this should not have had an effect on the local Propers.

that the Trentan rite was set in stone for all time.

Also the decree banning any changes, I think only applied to the Canon of the Roman Missal, and also did not effect the ancient variations found in the other ancient Rites and Usages. This also would not apply to the Temporal and Sanctoral cycles found in the Missal.

The anathematising of any who would introduce the vernacular into the mass was the paranoid child of blind contemporaneous and timely passion

Well considering who was changing the form of the Mass to suit the then modern protestant Heresy... Henry VIII, Bloody Bess, Luther well it would be difficult to find a more repellant trio in all of History, and a trio more than worthy of an anathema. I do not know very much about Calvin and Zwingli, but wonder if they had traits equally repellent.

As for for allowing the vernacular, a quick look at the protestant groups founded by Luther and Calvin and how they have kept a liturgy common and acceptable to the founders over the last 500years, and how such groups have remained united and in such agreement, more than show the wisdom of limiting the vernacular.

Tomjaw

The missal itself was a centralized thing; that was novel in and of itself, along with control over its production through the novel requirement a typical edition issued in Rome becoming the standardizing reference point. Moreover, its promulgation relied on the centralizing trends of secular authorities to get it effect in the various national lands. (France, famously, held off for quite some time, for example - and the reason it could is that it was no long as fractioned in authority as it long had been.)

Richard,

Perhaps a short note from the hinterlands could encourage the bishop to encourage the pastor to (as it were) get with the program?