Ad Orientem in Ordinary Form of Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have a very linear concept of the theology of liturgy. Ad populem has not been the primary direction of the liturgy in the past, but was present in the liturgy more than you realize.

As i noted, the theology of the liturgy was not that narrowly set out.

And by the way, you appear almost to have a veiled implication that ad populem might not be the work of the Holy Spirit. I am sure you don’t really mean that challenge, but that is how it comes across.

As noted in Sacrosanctum Concilium, there were elements which over time were added and should be removed, and there were elements over time which were lost, which needed to be brought back. and when the dust settled and the negotiating back and forth ended, 2,147 bishops of the world voted in favor, and 4 voted against. I strongly suspect the holy Spirit was present then, and as Catholic school students we certainly prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in its deliberations.
 
Last edited:
And that was part of the reason that so many liturgists wanted to go back to when the tabernacles were first introduced into churches; they were not front and center. They were off to the side, often in a chapel like setting or on a side altar. Then (as before they were put into churches) the focus had been on what was occurring on the altar - the Consecration.
 
I believe in the Old Testament sacrifices were offered facing the people. Sacrifices were also offered completely hidden from them (in the Holy of Holies). I’ll leave it to the theologians to determine which posture is more pleasing to God.
 
Last edited:
Many Roman Catholic churches built in the last couple hundred years don’t face East or face West, but are on a north-south axis. So the priest is going to be facing either north or south and there’s no ad orientem possible.
 
When I was a Lutheran (some time ago, granted), the pastor would face the way the congregation was facing during prayers, as we were all praying together. Flash by a few decades, and I became a Catholic, which I love. But I was surprised at the priest facing us during prayers. I asked a few people if it wasn’t as if the priest was praying to us. And of course, they looked at me as if I had lost my mind!

I’m used to it now, and I think it is good to see the priest’s face and see what he is doing, and also to not make him lift the chalice above his head if he’s and older guy. I’m in favor of orienting the priest toward the congregation.
 
phil19034 said:
The priest is facing The Lord because he’s literally looking at the Tabernacle when doing Ad Orientem. That’s literally why. Because, yes while God is spiritually present everywhere, He is physically present in the tabernacle when their are consecrated hosts in there.
Click to expand...
Um, at the consecration, and until the unconsumed hosts are returned to the tabernacle, the Lord is present on the altar so no matter which way the priest faces, he is facing the Lord. So your argument doesn’t wash.
otjm said:
Ad populem has not been the primary direction of the liturgy in the past, but was present in the liturgy more than you realize.
Click to expand...
Exactly! And if that were not the case, my 1935 ceremonial would not include rubrics on this. In fact it was the case in any church with a choir where the altar, usually free-standing, was between the choir and the nave, which occurred in many cathedrals and monastic churches. In that layout, invariably the Mass was either towards the people in the choir, or those in the nave, but never ad orientem to both at the same time. In these cases the tabernacle was not on the altar.

That’s because the same ceremonial makes it plain that the tabernacle on the altar is not the preferred location when the altar is in a space that is used for choral purposes outside the Mass (i.e. the Divine Office). This is the case in cathedral and conventual churches and some college churches. In these cases it is preferred to have the tabernacle at another suitable and noble altar!

Indeed, the liturgy cannot be narrowed down to a parish Mass on Sundays in the 1950s in a church with a high altar backed up against the apse or wall.

So where (name removed by moderator) says:
The practices within the liturgy, guarded by the Church for centuries, have the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and are beneficial for the salvation of souls, the mission and supreme law of the Church.
Click to expand...
(s)he has a point. The problem though is that (s)he seems to reduce this to a very exact set of circumstances that have never been absolute in the Church. To the extent that the Church prescribes the proper way to celebrate each configuration (s)he’s correct, but to the extent that (s)he reduces this to only one particular configuration and point in time, she is dreadfully wrong, not only because the Church has always accepted other configurations, but because the Church through the Magisterium and the Holy Father have the supreme authority to regulate, and yes change, the liturgy.
 
paperwight said:
40.png
phil19034:
40.png
paperwight:
I’m sorry, but tat argument doesn’t convince me. An omnipresent God is not limited to being behind the altar. He is just as much present in front of it, surely?
Click to expand...
The priest is facing The Lord because he’s literally looking at the Tabernacle when doing Ad Orientem. That’s literally why. Because, yes while God is spiritually present everywhere, He is physically present in the tabernacle when their are consecrated hosts in there.
Click to expand...
But the Sacrifice if the Mass is not offered to the Real Presence, The Sacrifice is of Jesus to the Father.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m simply saying some people think it’s better symbolism for the priest not to have his back to Jesus.

I could be wrong, but I think that MIGHT be one of the reasons why priests started moving the tabernacle after Vatican II in the first place. I can imagine a pious priest or bishop not liking the idea of having his back to Jesus so he decides to move the tabernacle to another part of the Church.

Just a theory.

God bless
 
OraLabora said:
Um, at the consecration, and until the unconsumed hosts are returned to the tabernacle, the Lord is present on the altar so no matter which way the priest faces, he is facing the Lord. So your argument doesn’t wash.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to that part of the mass. Of course, at the consecration and until after communion the Lord is on the altar.

Look, I don’t have a personal preference. The good priests, who are focused on what they are praying do not bother me one way or another.

However, I do get a distracted by the few priests who overtly act out the prayers as if it was a play. Those are the priests I wish would face away.
 
His back is not to Jesus. Jesus is present in the people gathered and in the scripture and in the priest himself. Also after the consecration Jesus is present in the Holy Eucharist on the altar.
 
Mi_Rose said:
His back is not to Jesus. Jesus is present in the people gathered and in the scripture and in the priest himself. Also after the consecration Jesus is present in the Holy Eucharist on the altar.
Click to expand...
Look, I’m not looking to argue this. I personally don’t have a preference, though I do appreciate the symbolism of the Ad Orientem. I’m simply arguing that the other side has some merit.

All I’m saying is that until the consecration, Jesus is physically present in the tabernacle only. So for SOME, they don’t like the idea of the priest having his back to Jesus.

For example: I know a Deacon who used to bow to the tabernacle when crossing the Altar during Mass. But since he’s supposed to bow towards to Altar, he now tries to walk in front of the Altar so he bows to both the Altar and tabernacle. But when he does walk behind the Altar, he still will bow to the tabernacle while the priest bows to the Altar.

So there are some (even among clergy) who would prefer not to have their back to the tabernacle.

Now, what would be better? Moving the tabernacle to a side altar again, or doing ad orientem? I’m not sure…
 
Last edited:
I would want to go to an Ad Orientem Mass (if it was offered). That is primarily since the priest is the foremost of all the servants. He should be faced towards the altar instead of towards the people. Not all priests are so comfortable with Ad Populo because of the fact that people will end up looking at the priest for a big part of the Mass.
 
Last edited:
The Crucifix isn’t Jesus, but an image to remind us what Jesus did.

Jim
 
But nowadays, children learn differently than they did during a time when illiteracy was the norm, and there were no movies, videos, computers, books, etc.

The meaning of the Mass should be taught to children from a very early age by their parents, and as they grow older, the children should learn in a formal setting such as Religious Education classes and/or Catholic schools. There are also lots of online resources that can be used to teach children, as well as the old-fashioned “books.”

I think that most people, at least in the U.S., who know nothing about the Mass would not “get it” from watching the priest face either front or back. That kind of symbolism would need to be explained to modern people, many of which have a very pronounced skepticism of anything that isn’t tangible to the senses, e.g., God.
 
That’s true but in the Missal of 1962 there is certainly a lot of bowing directed at the crucifix which I believe is a requirement to have. Just sayin’.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, in that format

The Mass and spirituality of the Church has evolved where we understand that God dwells within, and not out in the cosmos only

When speaking of God dwelling within, many Catholics view it as being New Age. 😃

Jim
 
Last edited:
I think the priest facing the same way as the people better expresses our unity as adoring God as one body (with the priest acting as the head of the body). There’s also less temptation for the priest to act like he’s on a stage performing for the audience. We face the same way when we pray to God as one, and the priest faces us and we face him when we talk to each other (Dominus vobiscum, etc.) It doesn’t make much sense to pray at each other.


There’s a reason why all Christians with a priesthood that offers sacrifice, from East to West, did it like this for almost 2000 years, and why every other rite still does.
 
The early first century Church, before Constantine’s Edict of Religious tolerance in 315AD, celebrated Mass hidden and often in homes, and the celebrant faced the people.

When Constantine donated Roman buildings to the Church to be used as Churches, they included large shelves against the back wall which held books and manuscripts which were very heavy.

The tradition of the priest offering Mass on these selves, mandated that his back was to the people, and that is where the tradition evolved into the norm, until Vatican II.

Lastly, the priest takes the place of Christ at the Mass and Christ faced the people, when he established the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

So, the priest facing the people is doing what Christ did.

The Church accepts both.

However, these debates are repetitive and are not conducive for our spirituality.

Jim
 
Last edited:
JimR-OCDS said:
The early first century Church, before Constantine’s Edict of Religious tolerance in 315AD, celebrated Mass hidden and often in homes, and the celebrant faced the people.
Click to expand...
This view has been discredited. Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy” pages 74 to 84 has a good discussion on where this misconcemption came from, what actual house liturgies were like at the time. They were not on opposite sides of the table from the priest–they all were at the same convex side of a sigma shaped table.
 
Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy, doesn’t go into historical details about how Mass was celebrated before the 4th Century

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top