A Question Re: NO/OF Rubrics

[Crux_Sacra]

In the Latin rubrics in the Order of Mass in the Daily Roman Missal, the words “conversus” and “versus” are used, translated as “turned towards,” and “facing” respectively.

In looking up the definitions of these verbs, I found that “conversus” means basically, to turn 180 degrees, and has the same root as the word “convert.” And “versus” can mean either faces or turns. But I have been told that the NO/OF Mass was never meant to be celebrated with the Priest’s back to the people. I have also been told that these words simply mean where the Priest looks.

My questions:

1. If the Priest faces the people anyway in the OF Mass, why would there be instructions for him to turn to face them? Or, why would the instructions make sure that he is facing them?
2. If these instructions are to tell him where to look, why would they not use words which clearly mean “look”?

In seeking an answer, I have watched (among other things) a complete OF Mass in Latin on a YouTube channel, TheAtonementAcademy. I’ll let those interested look up the videos instead of posting links here. It’s the 6 part series “Latin Novus Ordo Assumption Mass.” When the celebrant is at the altar, he faces the altar, and turns 180 degrees to face the people at the exact points where the DRM uses the verbs, "“conversus” or “versus.” (#29 at 6:48 in part 4/6; #127 at 7:00 in part 5/6; and #132 at 0:05 and #133 at 0:22 and #141-144 at 5:30-6:05 in part 6/6) Although this is an Anglican Use parish, this is definitely the NO/OF (he uses Eucharistic Prayer 2).

More questions:
3) If the way this particular priest is celebrating the OF Mass is not what is meant by the rubrics in the Daily Roman Missal, then why do the rubrics read this way? I mean, this is the way I picture it in my head when I read the Order of Mass, not the way I normally see Mass celebrated.

1. How can this simply not be right? Not only does it follow the rubrics to the letter, it is highly reminiscent of the TLM, and very majestic. Even in English it would be just as reverent and majestic.
2. Granted, in these videos the altar is against the wall, but that shouldn’t matter, should it?

 

[powerofk]

Even though most OF Masses are celebrated with the priest facing the people (versus populum), the priest MAY still celebrate the OF form of the Mass in the older ad orientum, facing away from the people, and toward Jerusalem. Either way is permissible.

 

[johnmann]

forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/90671#Comment_90671

One must remember that Latin makes do with what it has, and not every Latin word bears exactly the meaning it “ought” to have based on its etymology or grammatical parsing. Some months ago I talked (online) with somebody who was confused by the line “et homo factus est”: factus est, they said, is the passive of facio, and so it should mean “was made” (by somebody), not “became” in a self-actuating sense. But the truth is, fio (“to become”) is defective and lacks a past tense, so this is supplied by the past tenses of facio.

Similarly the past participle conversus, grammatically speaking, means “having turned” (the prefix con- indicating, in this case, completeness). But as Latin lacks an explicit preposition meaning “facing,” it gets the sense by using forms of versus, like adversus and conversus (the preposition contra can be used, but would generally carry a sense closer to “opposite from”). The fact that these adjectives derive from a verb meaning “turn” does not imply that any turning is actually done: an adversarius, for instance, is somebody who is against you, not somebody who has turned against you but must have been for you at some point in the past. There is nothing idiomatic about this; it is how these words are ordinarily used.

Thus Caesar (Bello Civili 3.63): “Erat eo loco fossa . . . et vallum contra hostem . . . . Ab eo intermisso spatio pedum dc alter conversus in contrariam partem . . . .” – “There was a trench with a rampart fronting the enemy. At an interval of six hundred feet away there was another, facing the opposite direction.” Needless to say, at no point in time had the second set of works “turned.”

“Convertens” would be “turning,” not “facing.”

Not that it matters. Both the EF and OF rubrics explicitly permit versus populum.

 

[SocialReign]

Even though most OF Masses are celebrated with the priest facing the people (versus populum), the priest MAY still celebrate the OF form of the Mass in the older ad orientum, facing away from the people, and toward Jerusalem. Either way is permissible.

If he’s okay with being banished to a small-town parish in the middle of nowhere.

 

[PacoG]

Even though most OF Masses are celebrated with the priest facing the people (versus populum), the priest MAY still celebrate the OF form of the Mass in the older ad orientum, facing away from the people, and toward Jerusalem. Either way is permissible.

Ad Orientum isn’t “toward Jerusalem.”

Rather, ad orientum is facing the rising sun which is symbolic of our joyful expectation of the Second Coming. The priest faced east (liturgical east) because he was leading his congregation to the Risen Christ.

That is also why old cemeteries had the tombs facing east.

 

[ProVobis]

the priest facing the people (versus populum),

The OP is correct. “Versus populum” like the stronger “conversus populum” means “having turned towards” the people. (At least it’s translated that way in the 62 handmissal.)

FACING the people would be “ad populum” or even “adversus populum.”

 

[ProVobis]

In the Latin rubrics in the Order of Mass in the Daily Roman Missal, the words “conversus” and “versus” are used, translated as “turned towards,” and “facing” respectively.

In looking up the definitions of these verbs, I found that “conversus” means basically, to turn 180 degrees, and has the same root as the word “convert.” And “versus” can mean either faces or turns. But I have been told that the NO/OF Mass was never meant to be celebrated with the Priest’s back to the people. I have also been told that these words simply mean where the Priest looks.

Hmmm. “Versus populum” can mean “having turned towards” the people and probably is in the context used. “Conversus” has a sense of “togetherness” though. “Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos” is translated “thou will turn again, O God, and quicken us” in some handmissals but I don’t think there’s a way to properly express it in the English grammar.

FACING the people would be “ad populum” or even “adversus populum.”

Good observation on your part.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Thank you for all of your replies.

I ask these questions not because I have some kind of problem with the Priest facing us during Mass, but rather because, I was told by one person that the OF Mass was never intended to be celebrated *ad orientem, *and my interpretation was therefore dead wrong; and I was told by a second person that those rubrics indicated where the Priest looks, with the example given being when the Priest looks at what he’s doing on the altar.

So I question because I know, just looking at the Roman Canon, that Latin has ways to say where someone looks, for example, “et elevatis oculis in caelum,” which means “and with eyes raised to Heaven,” and “elevat oculos,” or, “he raises his eyes.” Or if the phrase meant that he “looks,” I would think the Latin would use something like “spectare.” And I question because these points during the Mass echo the times in the EF when the Priest would turn to face the people.

And I understand that sometimes we use a word to mean something not technically its definition, like “turns to” doesn’t necessarily mean one actually turns in the action, but again, why would the rubrics specify that the priest “faces” the people if he is already facing them anyway? It would be an unnecessary addition to the rubrics.

I am wondering if this a) a holdover from the EF rubrics, or b) a subtle way of noting that both ways are okay, or c) maybe the OF was originally intended to be celebrated ad orientem as the norm and versus populum became the norm instead.

-God Bless!

 

[Phemie]

It’s my understanding that the Ordinary Form is meant to be celebrated facing liturgical east but MAY be celebrated facing the people. Just like Latin is its default but the vernacular MAY be used. We both know how the articles of *Sacrosanctum Concililum *about the use of Latin have been ignored over the past 45+ years. Just as its articles about Gregorian chant and organ music have been ignored.

 

[ProVobis]

And I understand that sometimes we use a word to mean something not technically its definition, like “turns to” doesn’t necessarily mean one actually turns in the action, but again, why would the rubrics specify that the priest “faces” the people if he is already facing them anyway? It would be an unnecessary addition to the rubrics.

Precisely. My thinking is that if “ad populum” was to be the norm throughout the Mass, or the EP, it would have been specified as such as a separate instruction.

 

[dans0622]

… I was told by one person that the OF Mass was never intended to be celebrated *ad orientem, *and my interpretation was therefore dead wrong … I am wondering if this a) a holdover from the EF rubrics, or b) a subtle way of noting that both ways are okay, or c) maybe the OF was originally intended to be celebrated ad orientem as the norm and versus populum became the norm instead.

Hello,

It would be interesting to see where such an assertion could find a basis in official documentation. From what I know, there is no such basis. Of course, it is easy to say that this was “the intention” of someone, even someone influential. I suspect that quite a number of 1960s-1970s high-ranking clerics preferred *ad populum *orientation. But, there was never (again, as far as I know) an actual Vatican document which said “The Church intends only *ad populum *celebrations of the OF.”

The accurate way to characterize it is to say that it has always been true that the OF rubrics have allowed celebrating in either manner. From its inception, the OF rubrics have recommended the construction of “freestanding” altars. I believe this was first stated in the 1964 document *Inter oecumenici *, #91. This was before the OF, obviously. Anyway, that sort of altar makes *ad populum *possible but even with a freestanding altar, *ad orientem *is still fully legitimate and always has been so. *Ad populum *is “permitted,” this document says. Also, the General Instruction has always used permissive, not obligatory, language about ad populum celebration (1970/1975 GIRM, # 262; 2001 GIRM, # 299): Mass “can be” celebrated facing the people with a freestanding altar.

The rubrics’ inclusion of the language directing the priest to turn this way or that at certain points of the Mass makes this clear. These rubrics have been present since the beginning of the OF. This rubric also acknowledges that there are some churches that do not have freestanding altars–those which were built before 1965 were never required to construct new altars. Certainly, Masses at those churches have to be ad orientem.

To your concluding questions: Yes, ad orientem is part of the traditional of the Church so it is “a holdover”… like so many other parts of the OF. Yes, both ways are ok. Intentions? I don’t know about that.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINOEC.HTM

Dan

 

[TimothyH]

liturgical east = the altar

The priest always faces liturgical east because the priest always faces the altar.

Physical east is where the sun rises. Liturgical east is where the Son of God rises. It is where the Light of the World, the “Bright Morning Star” from Revelation 22 is resurrected and rises every morning.

…and the focal point, what some call the “liturgical East”, is the place where the Father sends his Son, at his Son’s own request, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Son offers himself together with us in the unity of the Holy Spirit to the Father: it is the gate of heaven…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Read More

Liturgical east has nothing to do with facing toward or away from the people. It has to do with facing the altar. When you face the altar you face east.

"Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him." (Matthew 2:2)

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

To your concluding questions: Yes, ad orientem is part of the traditional of the Church so it is “a holdover”… like so many other parts of the OF. Yes, both ways are ok. Intentions? I don’t know about that.

Since many churches were already being built long before Vatican II where the priest or the congregation wouldn’t be facing east, wouldn’t “CUM populo” have been a more appropriate distinction? Just a thought.