Can someone explain versus populum to me

[Ahlman]

With ad orientem liturgicum, the big wall crucifix with the tabernacle right beneath it becomes the common focus for both the celebrant and the congregation during the Eucharistic celebration. However, for some reasons the de facto norm throughout the Church today seems to be versus populum celebration. I would like to hear a good historical explanation why and how this change was made, and the theological reasons behind it.

As it is now, in most churches I have been to, the only visible crucifix is the big wall crucifix behind the altar. This obviously cannot be a common focus during versus populum celebrations since the celebrant is facing the other way. But even as a congregant, I find it psychologically unlogical to focus on the crucifix behind the altar while the sacrifice is being re-enacted on the altar in front of it. And if you are not focusing and contemplating on the crucifix during the Eucharistic celebration, what is it really for?

The best way would obviously be to do as the pope does and put a big crucifix on the center of the altar itself. However, if you already have a big crucifix on the wall behind, wouldn’t two visible crosses diminish the symbolism? And even if the altar crucifix is the only visible one, there is no way for the celebrant and the congregation to focus on the same corpus of the crucifix if they are facing different ways.

I really want to accept the fact that versus populum is the setting most commonly used today and that the altar according to the GIRM should be freestanding, so I would be glad to hear som good explanations why it has become so.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

The best historical explanation I have seen is in a series of bulletin messages written for the five Sundays of Lent in 2008 by Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Church in Greenville, SC, as he prepared his congregation to return to celebrating the Mass ad orientem.

The text can be found here: stmarysgvl.org/whatsnew/turning-together-towards-the-lord

The same text is available in a slightly easier-to-read PDF file by clicking on the link Turning Together Towards the LORD at the right side of the page.

 

[benedictgal]

The best historical explanation I have seen is in a series of bulletin messages written for the five Sundays of Lent in 2008 by Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Church in Greenville, SC, as he prepared his congregation to return to celebrating the Mass ad orientem.

The text can be found here: stmarysgvl.org/whatsnew/turning-together-towards-the-lord

The same text is available in a slightly easier-to-read PDF file by clicking on the link Turning Together Towards the LORD at the right side of the page.

There is also a book called “Turning Towards the Lord” written by Fr. Uwe Lang, who is now an official at the Congregtion for Divine Worship aand the Discipline of the Sacraments as well as a consultor to the Office of Liturgies for the Supreme Pontiff. In fact, Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote the foreward to the book.

You can find an exerpt of Fr. Lang’s book here at:

adoremus.org/0405LiturgicalPrayer.html

I bought it and then gave it to my parochial vicar who has since adopted the ad orientum posture whenever he celebrates Mass at the local hospital chapel.

 

[Ahlman]

How and why this novelty spread so far and so fast is a tale for another time and place; for now I want only to make this point: there is no essential connection between the liturgy of Vatican II, the freestanding altar, and the priest facing the people at the altar.

Actually, I am very interested in hearing the tale of why the novelty of versus populum spread som far and so fast. If all the liturgical experts says (and give many convincing arguments for) that ad orientem is better, why on earth was it abandoned in virtually all churches around the world?

 

[gelsbern]

There is a thread about this particular topic. You may want to have a look.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=141840

 

[benedictgal]

Last November, I was blessed to be able to hear Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments address the Gateway Liturgical Conference. He talked about Ars Celebrandi.

During his address, he touched upon the issue of versus populum. Here is what he said:

Let us face it, all of us, Priests, Bishops and even Cardinals are human beings and so the temptation to place ourselves at the centre makes us feel good, what I call “ego
pampering”. None of us, are exempt from this and now with the Missa versus Populum that danger is even greater. Facing the people increases chances of dis-attention and distraction from what we do at the altar and then the temptation or showmanship. In a beautiful article written by a German author the following comments were made on the subject – “while in the past, the priest functioned as the anonymous go-between, the first among
the faithful, facing God and not the people, representative of all and together with them offering the sacrifice ……… today he is a distinct person, with personal characteristics, his personal life
style, his face turned towards the people. For many priests this change is a temptation they cannot handle ………… to them, the level of success in their performance is a measure of their personal power and thus the indicator of their feeling of personal security and self assurance” [K.G. Rey, “Pubertaetserscheinungen in der Katholischen Kirche” – “Signs of Puberty in the Catholic Church” – Kritische Texte, Benzinger, Vol 4, p. 25]. The priest here, as we can see,
becomes the main actor playing out a drama with other actors on a platform like place and the more creative and dramatic they become they feel a sense of ego satisfaction. But, where can Christ be in all of this?

…He should never assume a pedantic and haughty attitude of feeling that he can decide on the rite and add or remove anything at his own will. At the same time he should refrain from every effort at drawing the attention of the congregation to himself but ensure that Christ outshines in everything. Besides, he should realize that by submitting humbly to the beauty of the rubrics, he
will be freer to elevate his mind and heart to the contemplation of the mysteries he celebrates and be able to adore the Lord and the heavenly hosts that descend on the Altar, transmitting that same faith and devotion to his congregation.

You can read the entire text of his address at this link:

archstl.org/worship/images/stories/towards_an_ars_celebrandi.pdf

I shared this reflection with my parochial vicar and with a couple of priest friends of mine. They found his words most helpful.

 

[palmas85]

It was explained to me like this. When the Priest faced away from the congregation, towards the Tabernacle he was in fact facing the Lord and leading the congregation towards the Lord. The Sacrifice was made to the Lord not to the people. It sent a very powerful message as to exactly what was going on.

Protestants, do not believe in the sacrifice or the real presence. Therefore, their worship services are by design different than are Catholic. Since almost all of their gatherings consist of preaching the minister faces the congregation throughout. In the much the same vein the Priest always faced the people when giving the homily. It was delivered for them. The sacrifice however was made to God.

My own take on the issue is that those who instituted the practice of facing the congregation were looking for ways to minimize the visual differences between the protestant and Catholic forms of worship and thus make protestants more comfortable in Catholic Mass settings/

Quite obviously it did not work.

 

[Lazerlike42]

My own take on the issue is that those who instituted the practice of facing the congregation were looking for ways to minimize the visual differences between the protestant and Catholic forms of worship and thus make protestants more comfortable in Catholic Mass settings.

Quite obviously it did not work.

While I don’t know if this was their intention or not (it is always asserted to be but I wasn’t in the room so I won’t say it was or wasn’t ), I think it quite obviously has accomplished this. That does not mean it is objectively best, or that it ought always to be done this way. However, there is no question that I was more comfortable with the Church and so able to open my mind to Her because in ways I would not have been had I not experienced the Mass in english and versus populum. Now personally, I love the ad orientem and believe it to be best. However, I would strongly support having at least one Sunday Mass in each parish, or even in each city or town, said versus populum, because I know from my personal experience and from many of the other Protestants and converts I either know or have heard the converstion stories of that this has helped in that regard.**

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think this threrad has one big problem: nearly every poster has misunderstood the OPs question! He asked for an explanation of the reasons for saying the Mass versus populum, not ad orientem, which he seems to understand.

He basically said that he wants to be able to accept that saying the Mass versus populum, as it is done most commonly today, is at least in some way acceptable or beneficial.

 

[Rabbititus]

This isn’t a scholarly answer, but I heard it was because in the mid 20th century, scholars and archaeologists commonly believed that the early Christians celebrated mass versus populum. The idea was to recapture something the early Christians did.

I think that notion has been debunked, and it is now believed that the early Christians all turned east for the most sacred parts of the liturgy, regardless of how the altar was positioned.

BTW, it should be kept in mind that mainline protestants (Anglicans and Lutherans) usually celebrated their communion services “ad orientem” too. They started going versus populum in imitation of us. You’re much more likely to see an ad orientem altar in a Lutheran or Anglican church nowadays than in a Catholic church.

 

[Ahlman]

BTW, it should be kept in mind that mainline protestants (Anglicans and Lutherans) usually celebrated their communion services “ad orientem” too. They started going versus populum in imitation of us. You’re much more likely to see an ad orientem altar in a Lutheran or Anglican church nowadays than in a Catholic church.

Exactly. This is the bit I do not get. On these forums I often hear complaints that versus populum was introduced just in order to make the Mass look more like a protestant service, but the priest who received me into the Church said that it is only the high church Lutherans, the “evangelical catholics” who use versus populum, in imitation of the Catholics after Vatican II! In fact, if you look at all the old, former Catholic churches in the Swedish Lutheran church, almost all of the old wall-altars has been preserved. And the parishes that mostly tend to use these old wall-altars and ad orientem celebrations rather than putting up new altars, are the low church parishes, that is, those who believe the least in the real precence and sacrificial character of the (protestant) mass.

 

[ChemicalBean]

With ad orientem liturgicum, the big wall crucifix with the tabernacle right beneath it becomes the common focus for both the celebrant and the congregation during the Eucharistic celebration. However, for some reasons the de facto norm throughout the Church today seems to be versus populum celebration. I would like to hear a good historical explanation why and how this change was made, and the theological reasons behind it.

As it is now, in most churches I have been to, the only visible crucifix is the big wall crucifix behind the altar. This obviously cannot be a common focus during versus populum celebrations since the celebrant is facing the other way. But even as a congregant, I find it psychologically unlogical to focus on the crucifix behind the altar while the sacrifice is being re-enacted on the altar in front of it. And if you are not focusing and contemplating on the crucifix during the Eucharistic celebration, what is it really for?

The best way would obviously be to do as the pope does and put a big crucifix on the center of the altar itself. However, if you already have a big crucifix on the wall behind, wouldn’t two visible crosses diminish the symbolism? And even if the altar crucifix is the only visible one, there is no way for the celebrant and the congregation to focus on the same corpus of the crucifix if they are facing different ways.

I really want to accept the fact that versus populum is the setting most commonly used today and that the altar according to the GIRM should be freestanding, so I would be glad to hear som good explanations why it has become so.

These are not theologically rigid explanations, but here are some thoughts:

Using a freestanding altar “versus populum” makes it very clear that the focus of attention should be on the Eucharist, happening right now. When everything is all in a neat little row (crucifix, tabernacle, altar, priest, etc) it’s all too easy to put yourself on “autopilot”, genuflect in that general direction, and not really think about the symbolism. A crucifix is useful for more than a focal point during Mass. It is a contradictory sign of unconditional love, a reminder of our call to become the same. A tabernacle in use actually houses the Real Presence of Christ, but is not more important than the Mass taking place.

A freestanding altar makes it more easy for the faithful to participate interiorly. You have a chance of “seeing” what’s going on; you are not by default watching the back of the priest. And while some will split hairs over whether the people “celebrate” the mass with the priest, the fact remains that people are called to offer in the sacrifice of the Mass - that’s why the Eucharistic Prayers are written in 1st-person plural, and that the people give their assent to pray it during the “Lord be with You” dialogue at the beginning and the Great Amen at the end.

A freestanding altar is a powerful reminder that the Eucharist is both sacrifice and meal. I was told that altar means table in Latin, which makes sense. Not only is the Eucharist something that we “give up”, it is something that we “receive.”

A freestanding altar encourages (at least a sense of) a rounded assembly centered on God. And there are some that rip on “churches in the round”, but I think it reminds me of that beautiful, joyous image in Revelation with the 24 elders and angels and saints surrounding the Lamb, praising him day and night singing Holy, Holy, Holy… sounds kind of like the eternal Mass to me! Mass is supposed to be practice for Heaven.

 

[Brian777]

I think this threrad has one big problem: nearly every poster has misunderstood the OPs question! He asked for an explanation of the reasons for saying the Mass versus populum, not ad orientem, which he seems to understand.

He basically said that he wants to be able to accept that saying the Mass versus populum, as it is done most commonly today, is at least in some way acceptable or beneficial.

I used to think it was somewhat beneficial and acceptable…the more i think about it though the more a realize (actually to my great pain) that i really do not believe it has any value, and i am simply feigning an acceptance of it to make my ad orientem side seem less overbearing or domineering…and to keep myself from kicked out of seminary…