Ad Orientum

[porthos11]

jeanannemarie;10621076:

The “Form” doesn’t need an overhaul (It’s the Ordinary Form after all) - it peoples’ habitual way of dumbing down everything that needs an overhaul.

^ This.

The OF does not need an overhaul. What needs to be done is to have it celebrated the way the Church actually commands (and better yet, the way the Church prefers).

That said, ad orientem IS the norm for the Ordinary Form (the wording of the GIRM presumes this), facing the people is permitted.

 

[Sirach2]

It would be horrible to eat lying down.

BTW doesn’t the Bible ask the Jews to eat standing up during passover?

I had read that the custom was to eat the lamb standing, but they could partake of the four blessing cups, etc., as per their natural custom … reclining at table?

 

[Sirach2]

The most prominent feature of the room would have been a low table in the shape of a “U” called a triclinium, a Roman styled table, of various sizes and styles, that had been adopted by the Jews of the first century. The table had large couches, or cushions, placed on each of the three sides.

agree

The guests approached the table from behind the couches, then reclined on their left side, supporting their head on their left elbow, leaving their right hand free to take the food. Their feet would stretch out behind them, away from the table.

agree

The host of the feast would not sit in the middle, but instead second to the left, with the guest of honor on his left, and a trusted friend to his right. The seating then continued around the triclinium, the most important guests seated on the left, then going around the table, with the least important sitting on the far right. If this seating arrangement was followed, John the beloved was seated to Jesus’ right (the place of the trusted friend), Peter on the opposite end (the place of the servant), and to the left of Christ, in the seat of honor, as both Jesus and Judas were able to eat from the same bowl.

Awesome! Think about it! An author I read said that Judas, having the seat of honor to the left, would receive the morsel directly from Jesus. A last plea of sorts, letting him know how intimately he was seated in Christ’s presence.

I would like to add that nothing in any of the documents of the Second Vatican Council call for a change in orientation of the priest. In fact, there is no Church document that calls for it.

As for the rest of this post, I am weary of this discussion, since many of you have presented countless proofs that A.O. is the only lawful orientation. That tells me the Church is wrong, and Pope Francis celebrated wrong, etc., etc. Since this cannot be true, somebody is greatly in error spreading this type of dogmatic theory. I’m tuning it out. If the Church decides to change the orientation, well and good. Until then, we are jabbing one another to death over this, whereas nobody in this forum has authority to change it to their satisfaction. So why dicker?

 

[porthos11]

As for the rest of this post, I am weary of this discussion, since many of you have presented countless proofs that A.O. is the only lawful orientation. That tells me the Church is wrong, and Pope Francis celebrated wrong, etc., etc. Since this cannot be true, somebody is greatly in error spreading this type of dogmatic theory. I’m tuning it out. If the Church decides to change the orientation, well and good. Until then, we are jabbing one another to death over this, whereas nobody in this forum has authority to change it to their satisfaction. So why dicker?

^ This too. While I would prefer to see the Ordinary Form celebrated ad orientem, Mass facing the people is lawful, so arguments are pointless. Even more ridiculous are the arguments by both sides appealing to the posture of the Last Supper. How they did it at the Last Supper is irrelevant; what is relevant are the current laws established by the Church that command, deny, or permit what we do at liturgy.

 

[OraLabora]

^ This too. While I would prefer to see the Ordinary Form celebrated ad orientem, Mass facing the people is lawful, so arguments are pointless. Even more ridiculous are the arguments by both sides appealing to the posture of the Last Supper. How they did it at the Last Supper is irrelevant; what is relevant are the current laws established by the Church that command, deny, or permit what we do at liturgy.

^this three

 

[R_C]

Awesome! Think about it! An author I read said that Judas, having the seat of honor to the left, would receive the morsel directly from Jesus. A last plea of sorts, letting him know how intimately he was seated in Christ’s presence.

Yes, Judas would literally eat on the same bowl as the Lord, and according to Jewish custom, when the Lord offered him a morsel of bread, this was a most high sign of honor (and he was supposed to return Him the honor by doing the same).

As for the rest of this post, I am weary of this discussion, since many of you have presented countless proofs that A.O. is the only lawful orientation. That tells me the Church is wrong, and Pope Francis celebrated wrong, etc., etc. Since this cannot be true, somebody is greatly in error spreading this type of dogmatic theory. I’m tuning it out.

You are greatly misunderstanding such an important topic. There could be no greater error in the face of the major issues that the Roman Rite is facing, than to “tune out” that which needs to be addressed promptly. Nobody is claiming (at least I am not) that Ad Orientem is the only lawful orientation. That which the Church allows is both valid and licit, for to the Church, and particularly to the Holy See, has Christ given the keys to bind and lose in the Kingdom. What we are saying is that at one moment in history, only a few decades ago, a commission of fallible prelates and other external, non-Catholic consultants developed a revision of the Roman Rite that went far beyond the suggestions of the Ecumenical Council. A highly esteemed prelate who had participated actively in the Council and was well knowledgeable of the works of this commission, stated:

instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced – as if in a technical production – by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.

Is the Church wrong? There is no question that obviously the new form is valid, and when the Holy Father sealed the new form of the Roman Rite it became licit. What we must ask ourselves is whether or not it is the best form. The fact that in three or four decades it has become widespread does not mean much. It is certainly a departure from tradition, a major separation from every other Rite of the Church. Facing the people is ultimately a decision of the priest (whether or not this was promoted by some with their own peculiar ideas on the new role of the faithful, is a different story), but it remains an innovation even within the context of the Novus Ordo Missae (just like other “customs” not in the GIRM such as the vernacular and communion in the hand, which seem to some degree to not be entirely in line with Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia and Pope Paul VI
s Memoriale Domini, and the disappearance of the use of the incense, perhaps the most consistent of all Judeo-Christian liturgical traditions, which the GIRM makes optional in all Masses with probably the idea of promoting a more widespread usage, which instead lead to each and every Mass to find itself deprived of this marvelous sacramental).

It is these “customs” that are upsetting to those who try understand what the liturgy is and why it is important, more than the new form. I know with certainty from an eyewitness that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, if celebrated at its best and with utmost reverence, is almost indistinguishable from the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

 

[R_C]

How they did it at the Last Supper is irrelevant; what is relevant are the current laws established by the Church that command, deny, or permit what we do at liturgy.

Here we clearly see that something essential is missing: the Liturgy is not the work of human hands. It is not something that men came up with. The Eucharist was instituted in the Last Supper, and from this institution and the accounts of it the Apostles and Church Fathers celebrated the early version of the Mass on the Lord’s Day, and until this very day the Church celebrates a liturgy that is very closely similar to that of the Early Church in its essence. What they did at the Last Supper is in fact the only thing that matters, for it is from there that the Apostolic Tradition was born on liturgical matters. We certainly do not expect that seed to not grow and develop diverse branches, but the Church never commands, denies, or permits anything that constitutes a novelty without any reason, nor is she allowed to remove anything that is essential to the Liturgy.

We seem too quickly to forget the essential and to fall victims of a fallacious generalization: “the Church allows the Mass as we see it”. To begin with, there are several rites in the Church, and the Roman Rite has two forms. Thus, the Universal Church (thanks be to God) is not limited to what we usually see. Furthermore, as I explain above, there are quite a few things which are not quite “commanded” by the Church, and some of them are not even permitted, though they still take place. Facing the east is just a major departure from tradition, but we can cope with that. It is fairly possible that another commission of experts would in the decades to come restore some essential elements into the Ordinary Form, such as the fact that the priest and the congregation should face in the same direction, as a flock with a shepherd, facing God. And if this happens and another successor of the See of Peter seals and binds this, all the arguments of those who staunchly defend all the XX-century liturgical novelties will crumble

 

[Sirach2]

You are greatly misunderstanding such an important topic. There could be no greater error in the face of the major issues that the Roman Rite is facing, than to “tune out” that which needs to be addressed promptly.

By whom R.C.? Folks at CAF knocking at the doors of their bishops? Who else is upset other than traditionalists? A small minority, indeed.

I kinda think you’re preachin’ to the choir. :sad_yes:

 

[UncleBill]

I’m hardly a traditionalist…and I firmly believe that what has been done for the last 50 or so years of celebrating Mass facing the people is WRONG. All of the Apostolic Churches both East and West have served facing East…from the beginning up until Vatican II…facing the people in the pews changes the whole dynamic of the Mass…it makes it focused on the people instead of being focused on God.

And just because a pope does it doesn’t make it correct…the pope is NOT infallible when it comes to Liturgical matters.

 

[Basilios]

Ave Maria!

R_C your post’s are excellent! God Bless you. Here is one paragraph that made me remember something.

Here we clearly see that something essential is missing: the Liturgy is not the work of human hands. It is not something that men came up with. The Eucharist was instituted in the Last Supper, and from this institution and the accounts of it the Apostles and Church Fathers celebrated the early version of the Mass on the Lord’s Day, and until this very day the Church celebrates a liturgy that is very closely similar to that of the Early Church in its essence. What they did at the Last Supper is in fact the only thing that matters, for it is from there that the Apostolic Tradition was born on liturgical matters. We certainly do not expect that seed to not grow and develop diverse branches, but the Church never commands, denies, or permits anything that constitutes a novelty without any reason, nor is she allowed to remove anything that is essential to the Liturgy

I remember being on an orthodox forum recently and someone asked what they think of the Novus Ordo and why they think that why. I don’t usually put too much into what some Orthodox commentators say, but the general opinion was something I had never heard before but it made complete sense. They couldn’t understand the Novus Ordo and this is why: the new Mass was created after a Council by a committee. The old Mass was the product of centuries of development all the way from St Gregory the Great and before (those Orthodox using Western Rites still call it the Divine Liturgy of St Gregory). It was the product of saints and of a patriarchate that was (even if in their belief still wrong) alive and very self-conscious and aware of its peoples needs. But this got replaced by a committee-created liturgy imbibed with the spirit of the age (which is to say, the false archeologism and other such ideas). They just cannot understand it and they take it to be more proof that the Western Church has lost the plot. For the Orthodox - as for the Catholic even if we don’t realize it or want it - it is vitally important to be a traditionalist, especially in the liturgy. Spend one minute on an Orthodox forum, or chatting to a serious Orthodox believer, and you will see what tradition means to them. The 1962 Mass is the Divine Liturgy of St Gregory the Great and St Pius the V. It stands alongside the Divine Liturgy of St Chrysostom, St Basil and St James. Without it the Orthodox see us as more and more seperated from the saints of old, and see themselves more and more in the same spirit of the Fathers. They are wrong of course, because we are the true Church. But it is a fascinating and important aspect of the debate, and for me I see links too with Fatima and Russia.

God Bless!

 

[hcmusicguy]

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?

OH, OH, I KNOW! Because it’s not in the “spirit of Vatican II”…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So which way did Jesus face during the Last Supper?

 

[codefro]

Ok, I did not explain myself clearly enough. I was not referring to Da Vinci’s painting. I referred to the customary Jewish setting of the time.

The most prominent feature of the room would have been a low table in the shape of a “U” called a triclinium, a Roman styled table, of various sizes and styles, that had been adopted by the Jews of the first century. The table had large couches, or cushions, placed on each of the three sides.

The guests approached the table from behind the couches, then reclined on their left side, supporting their head on their left elbow, leaving their right hand free to take the food. Their feet would stretch out behind them, away from the table.

A man’s head would be in line with the chest of the person reclining to his left, making it easy for that person to lean back and speak to the person on his left without anyone else hearing what is said.

Thank you so much for this post. Absolutely great info.
Everyone sat on one side on the outside of the table (all facing in the same direction, that is) allowing the inside of the table to open for servers.

The host of the feast would not sit in the middle, but instead second to the left, with the guest of honor on his left, and a trusted friend to his right. The seating then continued around the triclinium, the most important guests seated on the left, then going around the table, with the least important sitting on the far right. If this seating arrangement was followed, John the beloved was seated to Jesus’ right (the place of the trusted friend), Peter on the opposite end (the place of the servant), and to the left of Christ, in the seat of honor, as both Jesus and Judas were able to eat from the same bowl.

Thus, Christ was not directly facing the apostles, and the only one who was farther to the end of the table was John, who could thus recline back on the Lord’s chest and see the Lord’s face.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2066&pictureid=15108
From “Food at the Time of the Bible” by Miriam Vamosh

I would like to add that nothing in any of the documents of the Second Vatican Council call for a change in orientation of the priest. In fact, there is no Church document that calls for it. Even the Missal used for the Ordinary Form seems to assumed that the priest is facing ad orientem when it instructs him at the “Pray Brethren” and “Behold the Lamb of God” to say these prayers “facing the people.” The only document that seems to imply that this is preferred is paragraph 299 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) which reads, “The altar should be built separate 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.” However, as clarified by the Congregation for Divine Worship, this is a misleading translation. When one looks at the Latin the clause “which is desirable,” it refers back to the first part of the sentence (that the altar should be built away from the wall, which is desirable wherever possible).

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 (see The Spirit of the Liturgy, by Cardinal Ratzinger, pp. 74-8). It is true that when Christians in fourth-century Rome could first freely begin to build churches, they customarily located the sanctuary towards the west (a Christian replication of the layout and the orientation of the Jerusalem Temple), however the people initially stood in the side naves and faced the centrally located altar for the first portion of the service, and later -at the approach of the Consecration - they all turned to face east towards the open church doors, the same direction the priest faced throughout the Eucharistic liturgy.

The idea of having the people face the priest and the priest face the people began only in the 16th century, with Martin Luther. In his Deutsche Messe und Ordnung des Gottesdienstes of 1526 he writes:

This homily given in the Cathedral of Marquette, MI by Bishop Alexander Sample, while he celebrated the Extraordinary Form on Sept 7, 2011, explains some of the reasons for praying the Mass Ad Orientem, and how doing so directs our attention outwardly towards Christ.

Very awesome info. Thank you for this.

 

[codefro]

you are greatly misunderstanding such an important topic. There could be no greater error in the face of the major issues that the roman rite is facing, than to “tune out” that which needs to be addressed promptly. Nobody is claiming (at least i am not) that ad orientem is the only lawful orientation. That which the church allows is both valid and licit, for to the church, and particularly to the holy see, has christ given the keys to bind and lose in the kingdom. What we are saying is that at one moment in history, only a few decades ago, a commission of fallible prelates and other external, non-catholic consultants developed a revision of the roman rite that went far beyond the suggestions of the ecumenical council. A highly esteemed prelate who had participated actively in the council and was well knowledgeable of the works of this commission, stated:

Is the church wrong? There is no question that obviously the new form is valid, and when the holy father sealed the new form of the roman rite it became licit. What we must ask ourselves is whether or not it is the best form. The fact that in three or four decades it has become widespread does not mean much. It is certainly a departure from tradition, a major separation from every other rite of the church. Facing the people is ultimately a decision of the priest (whether or not this was promoted by some with their own peculiar ideas on the new role of the faithful, is a different story), but it remains an innovation even within the context of the novus ordo missae (just like other “customs” not in the girm such as the vernacular and communion in the hand, which seem to some degree to not be entirely in line with pope john xxiii’s veterum sapientia and pope paul vi
s memoriale domini, and the disappearance of the use of the incense, perhaps the most consistent of all judeo-christian liturgical traditions, which the girm makes optional in all masses with probably the idea of promoting a more widespread usage, which instead lead to each and every mass to find itself deprived of this marvelous sacramental).

It is these “customs” that are upsetting to those who try understand what the liturgy is and why it is important, more than the new form. I know with certainty from an eyewitness that the ordinary form of the roman rite, if celebrated at its best and with utmost reverence, is almost indistinguishable from the extraordinary form of the roman rite.

^ this!

 

[codefro]

By whom R.C.? Folks at CAF knocking at the doors of their bishops? Who else is upset other than traditionalists? A small minority, indeed.

I kinda think you’re preachin’ to the choir. :sad_yes:

Things like orientation, when both are licit, can be influenced at a grassroots level. If laymen were humbly requesting ad orientum in the OF at their parishes, priests would consider making the change. If there is no requests, why would the priest do it? Priests want their parishioners to be pleased with the liturgy. The only way they would do it is if they actually read SOTL and were influenced by PEBXVI beautiful words. So thats why a post like this matters. It is not calling for anything harmful, on the contrary, it is calling for something good.

 

[SirStephen]

I personally favor the ad orientem but truth be known, what really bothers me is the undertone of loathing of those that favor new forms with a felt contempt for those seeking in the traditions something of the sacred. For those in favor of the AO, I suspect what really draws them is the sense for the loss of the sacred and its replacement with the utter pedestrian in the form of the mass they personally experience in Churches lost in postmodern concepts of “social justice” masquerading as true Catholic social justice. I am not saying the OF is pedestrian, just that it has been rendered that way in many parishes by the same impulses that undid the AO.

“I grow weary!” Really? And what of the contemptuous tone directed towards Pope Benedict’s “personal opinions” along with the sigh of relief that he stepped down before doing anything about them. My experience in watching these types of discussions is that it takes some time for one to get to the point where it turns out the current reality is based on “the spirit of Vatican II” by which is meant, was not really in Vatican II. Thus, it becomes yet another case of making a “by exception” the rule while no-one was looking – in the tradition of bait and switch no less - and then stating that this is the way it is and those not in agreement are extreme traditionalists. While many may lack an ability to explicitly state what they sense, there is the broad awareness that what we got in exchange for the “spirit of Vatican II” changes is a loss of the sacred. What silences this discussion are intellectual bullies who pretend they constitute the more considered view – not to mention the majority view. At what point does the loathing of the Church in history simply constitute the loathing of the Church period? I will wait to see if this gets removed due to some violation, but at some point, an honest discussion will have to be directed towards the contemptuous mindset of those who brought the Church to its current, almost irrelevant in the daily lives of most Catholics, situation. Really, if I wanted to be Protestant, I’d just become one.

For the record, I am with those who place a preference for the sacrifice of the mass over a meal at the Lord’s table. After all, this “Last Supper” was during the Passover, He is the High Priest of His Own Sacrifice, He was in place of the Pascal lamb, and we were commanded to do so by Jesus – anamnesis. But who am I, and 2000 years of Catholic history, to say?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Too much arguing with each other. Posters need to speak to the subject, not about each other.