Ad Orientum

  • Thread starter Thread starter codefro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

codefro

Guest
I have noticed on particular posts that even the subject of the priest facing Ad Orientum during the mass offends certain catholics. Why would this offend anyone? This was the way Mass was conducted for over a thousand years.

I don’t consider this post a EF vs. OF. Both masses are valid and people have decided which they like. Yet, particularly with the OF, PEBXVI lamented in his book “Spirit of the Liturgy” how the practice of facing liturgical east has been largely ignored. Now some would say that priests and bishops do not celebrate mass ad orientum in order to avoid misunderstandings with lay Catholics. Yet, if people were educated into how the priest facing liturgical east is an act of worship and not a means of disrespect, then maybe this beautiful practice could one day become the norm again. Thoughts?

Also, someone is bound to bring up “What difference does it make which way the priest faces?” It is a huge difference. It does mean something when the priest faces on way or another. It matters enough that our last HF wrote about it in his book. It matters that there is a movement to let the EF influence the OF of the Mass (which when allowed to do so, encourages the priest to pray liturgical east). There is a number on the rise of priests who say the OF of the mass Ad Orientum. So it does matter and make a difference. 🙂
 
I think it’s more often the case that versus populum offends some people.
 
johnmann said:
I think it’s more often the case that versus populum offends some people.
Click to expand...
Interesting…

I myself am not offended by versus populum, yet I just see AO in line with the hermeneutic of continuity
 
Perhaps its because I am a fairly recent convert, Easter 2010, but while I would love to see the return to ad orientum, communion rails, Greek (Kyrie) and Latin (especially for Sanctus and Agnus Dei) incorporated far more often I don’t get offended when the priest faces the people. I don’t get upset either when girls have to be used as altar servers, women being EMHCs, and other things that many traditionalists would be gravely upset at. Yes, it would be preferable if we did away completely with EMHCs, and girls were not altar servers, but it doesn’t anger me because as long as its not in violation of Tradition, Magisterium, or Scripture I don’t get upset.
 
I simply can’t imagine being offended by anything related to the Mass no matter how it’s celebrated. But that’s just me. 🤷
 
From a practical perspective, versus populam naturally tends to shift the focus onto the priest and the people rather than on God. If the priest is not facing the people, he’s not encouraged to showboat. If he’s not facing the people, they are less likely to think that the Mass is about THEM. Or if they still do, they’ll be the ones to complain about Ad Orientam.
 
oriens - the rising sun, east.
orientis
orienti
orientem
oriente

So it’s ad orientem.

Is versus populum contra orientem?
 
codefro said:
I have noticed on particular posts that even the subject of the priest facing Ad Orientum during the mass offends certain catholics. Why would this offend anyone? This was the way Mass was conducted for over a thousand years.
Click to expand...
You have been a member slightly over three years, and no doubt have seen the hundreds of posts on this topic. Try a google search only on CAF with the spelling “ad orientem” and there are 10 pages, 100 threads, not to mention the volume of posts in each thread. And if we expand it to the oft-misspelled “orientum” there will be even more.

So it amuses me that this topic simply will not be put to rest when it comes to traditionalists who strenuously object to any other form of celebration, despite the OF having celebrated facing the people for 50 long years. And it always comes up about “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s personal opinion, as if it should be Church law due to his having voiced it in a book.

May I say one more time, as I mentioned in your last thread, OP, that this discipline is regulated by the Church, who has seen fit to permit it, and that everything the good Cardinal wrote prior to the Office of Peter, does not become a Church rubric that must be followed and/or changed. Had he desired to do this, we would have seen a Motu Proprio similar to S.P. It was not issued, and although he, with his personal preference, celebrated A.O. in the Sistine, he celebrated V.P. in his public masses. It does not set a precedent one way or another, how BXVI celebrated during his Office.

To answer your question, I don’t think folks are offended by A.O., per se, but more so by the rigorous proselytizing of traditionalists posting that it can only be done correctly in this manner. As if the Church has erred in permitting this for 50 years. Does that help? Will that stop the flood of posts that decry the orientation of the celebrant should be A.O.?
 
"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:

“It has been the practice in the entire Church, East and West from time immemorial. Contrary to a prevailing misconception, there is no evidence for celebration of Mass versus populum in the first nineteen centuries of the Church’s history, with rare exceptions.”

“Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again.”

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:
Click to expand...
I understand the point you and others have made - ad nauseum. Truly, we hear you. What you overlook is that the disciplines regarding the liturgy, which this IS, are subject to change, no matter if it has been done from time immemorial. Nothing binds the Church to keep a “venerable practice” that She cannot change, for reasons that are often above our common understanding, but which have been discussed and decided by those to whom we owe our filial submission. Can you do that, Ed? Have you noticed that many Churches are not built facing East? Is the law of church architecture being put on the block, also … that nobody may build unless the structure faces East?

I think you folks pin way too much importance on this, and it tears at the Body of Christ. I would hope that some day we might all live in peace, each following our own consciences with regard to that liturgy we feel called by God to attend.

To use a poor, but true example, if we followed scripture and the way the early Church celebrated liturgies, we would all be enjoying agape meals. Does that mean we should continue to do so, since it was done from time immemorial? Can the Church change her disciplines? Of course.
 
Sirach2 said:
You have been a member slightly over three years, and no doubt have seen the hundreds of posts on this topic. Try a google search only on CAF with the spelling “ad orientem” and there are 10 pages, 100 threads, not to mention the volume of posts in each thread. And if we expand it to the oft-misspelled “orientum” there will be even more.

So it amuses me that this topic simply will not be put to rest when it comes to traditionalists who strenuously object to any other form of celebration, despite the OF having celebrated facing the people for 50 long years. And it always comes up about “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s personal opinion, as if it should be Church law due to his having voiced it in a book.

May I say one more time, as I mentioned in your last thread, OP, that this discipline is regulated by the Church, who has seen fit to permit it, and that everything the good Cardinal wrote prior to the Office of Peter, does not become a Church rubric that must be followed and/or changed. Had he desired to do this, we would have seen a Motu Proprio similar to S.P. It was not issued, and although he, with his personal preference, celebrated A.O. in the Sistine, he celebrated V.P. in his public masses. It does not set a precedent one way or another, how BXVI celebrated during his Office.

To answer your question, I don’t think folks are offended by A.O., per se, but more so by the rigorous proselytizing of traditionalists posting that it can only be done correctly in this manner. As if the Church has erred in permitting this for 50 years. Does that help? Will that stop the flood of posts that decry the orientation of the celebrant should be A.O.?
Click to expand...
Sirach, have you actually read the book?
 
One thing I would like to note, though, is that in many cases Ad Orientem isn’t Ad Orientem. For example, at my parish, which was built in 1916, the High Altar, which is still there, faces not east, but south. Another parish which is literally a stones throw away (you could easily break a window) has its altar facing not east but north. There are many other examples within the general vicinity that are likewise oriented north-south. It’s just the reality of trying to build where you don’t always get to choose the lay of the land.

So, I think the more appropriate term would be Cum Populo (with the people).
 
Sirach2 said:
I understand the point you and others have made - ad nauseum. Truly, we hear you. What you overlook is that the disciplines regarding the liturgy, which this IS, are subject to change, no matter if it has been done from time immemorial. Nothing binds the Church to keep a “venerable practice” that She cannot change, for reasons that are often above our common understanding, but which have been discussed and decided by those to whom we owe our filial submission. Can you do that, Ed? Have you noticed that many Churches are not built facing East? Is the law of church architecture being put on the block, also … that nobody may build unless the structure faces East?

I think you folks pin way too much importance on this, and it tears at the Body of Christ. I would hope that some day we might all live in peace, each following our own consciences with regard to that liturgy we feel called by God to attend.

To use a poor, but true example, if we followed scripture and the way the early Church celebrated liturgies, we would all be enjoying agape meals. Does that mean we should continue to do so, since it was done from time immemorial? Can the Church change her disciplines? Of course.
Click to expand...
I get the sense that people (myself included) are saying it is important. It is not pinning way too much importance. As I said at the beginning. It obviously is important. Sirach, just because it isn’t important to you, does not mean it is not important for the Church.

PS “50 long years…” ??? In church time that’s a minute. Some heresies and malpractice existed a lot longer than that before they were expelled. VP is definitely not a heresy, but 50 years is not much time to make your claims.
 
codefro said:
Sirach, have you actually read the book?
Click to expand...
I have read his opinion here. His opinion did not convince me that the Church is in error by permitting the newer orientation. It is offensive to even imply such a concept. When the Church sees fit to call forth the older A.O., I will be happy to assent to it. Until then, I hold my deepest reservations against those who dispute the lawful right of clergy to celebrate V.P.
 
Saints_Alive said:
Yes, I saw that a while back. The fact that ordained priests need such a manual is disturbing.
Click to expand...
I would think it is heavily biased toward BXVI’s preference for celebrating. Maybe the Holy Spirit intervened in curtailing it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top