Does the preist have to face the people?

[jimmy]

In the Novus Ordo, does the preist have to face the people? Could he be facing in the same direction as the people? It loses some of the meaning when the preist faces the people. In the old mass the preist faced the same direction as the people and he was kind of acting as the head of the whole community. It was the whole community making the offering. Now it seems like it is basicly just the preist.

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

jimmy:

In the Novus Ordo, does the preist have to face the people? Could he be facing in the same direction as the people? It loses some of the meaning when the preist faces the people. In the old mass the preist faced the same direction as the people and he was kind of acting as the head of the whole community. It was the whole community making the offering. Now it seems like it is basicly just the preist.

In my old Episcopal Church, the ‘priest’ faced the same direction as the people when ‘blessing’ the ‘sacrament’. I kind of miss that.

I look forward to an answer from some of our more knowledgeable posters.

In Christ,
RRT

 

[Brendan]

No, it is not required. Ad populam is permitted, but Ad Orientam is is technically the norm.

The church here in Detroit that offers the Traditional Latin Mass only has an Indult for Sunday Masses.

They do, however, offer Weddings done according to the Latin N.O. Missal said Ad Orientam. No Indult is required for such a Mass at anytime.

 

[jimmy]

Brendan:

No, it is not required. Ad populam is permitted, but Ad Orientam is is technically the norm.

The church here in Detroit that offers the Traditional Latin Mass only has an Indult for Sunday Masses.

They do, however, offer Weddings done according to the Latin N.O. Missal said Ad Orientam. No Indult is required for such a Mass at anytime.

Thanks Brendan. I really like ad Orientam better.

 

[Brendan]

A careful reading of the GIRM shows that the default is “Ad Orientem”.

In para 157 At the elevation, the priest is instructed to “Turn towards the people”

And in 158, the priest is instructed to “turn towards the Altar” (stans ad altare conversus). It uses an active verb, so the Instruction expects the priest to actually move at this point.

These instructions are meaningless in a “Ad Populum” Mass, but it really shows what the norm is. Ad Orientem

 

[jimmy]

Thankyou Brendan, that is very helpfull. I really would like to see Ad Orientam more. The only place I have seen it is at the latin mass.

 

[selvaraj]

RomanRiteTeen:

In my old Episcopal Church, the ‘priest’ faced the same direction as the people when ‘blessing’ the ‘sacrament’. I kind of miss that.

I look forward to an answer from some of our more knowledgeable posters.

In Christ,
RRT

Syro- Malankara Rite services are facing the Altar only. This Rite is available in South Indian State of Kerala where most of the Hindus converted by St.Thomas(doubting Thomas). They are the early fundamentalist Christians and their mass is almost different than Latin rite. I have attended many times.
For more please visit: malankara.net/

 

[jimmy]

selvaraj:

Syro- Malankara Rite services are facing the Altar only. This Rite is available in South Indian State of Kerala where most of the Hindus converted by St.Thomas(doubting Thomas). They are the early fundamentalist Christians and their mass is almost different than Latin rite. I have attended many times.
For more please visit: malankara.net/

I think that most, if not all eastern liturgies are facing away from the people. I know the Byzantine liturgy is. The latin mass is also ad orientam.

 

[kaygee]

if not all eastern liturgies are facing away from the people. I know the Byzantine liturgy is.

Yes, and it’s refreshing to see the priest ad orientem. . .

It’s not the “Father Jones” show – it’s the Divine Liturgy with Christ Himself presiding – and that’s easier to understand when one is not distracted by the priest’s personal mannerisms, etc. The priest in his sinful humanity faces the altar just like the rest of us; the priest in “Persona Christi” stands at the altar offering HIMSELF vested in a way that he will not distract from the sacrifice Christ is offering through him.
:twocents:

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

So if ad orientem is still the technical norm, what would a proper altar look like? Would a ‘high altar’ built into a wall be permitted?

 

[Brendan]

RomanRiteTeen:

So if ad orientem is still the technical norm, what would a proper altar look like? Would a ‘high altar’ built into a wall be permitted?

The GIRM does specify that a seperate, unmovable Altar should be installed that is detacted from the wall. If one exists, it should be used exclusively

If one does not exist, an unfixed ‘movable’ altar may be used, (this would also include the heavy wooden ones that are so common now-a-days - assuming it isn’t bolted to the floor). This Altar may be used, but the ‘High Altar’ would still be the immovable one and may be used.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Brendan:

A careful reading of the GIRM shows that the default is “Ad Orientem”.

In para 157 At the elevation, the priest is instructed to “Turn towards the people”

And in 158, the priest is instructed to “turn towards the Altar” (stans ad altare conversus). It uses an active verb, so the Instruction expects the priest to actually move at this point.

These instructions are meaningless in a “Ad Populum” Mass, but it really shows what the norm is. Ad Orientem

i don’t agree with saying that “ad orientem” is “the default”. i don’t think we need to look for hidden clues in the GIRM.

in 299, it says “…and [in such a way] that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” the “whereever” is governed by the architecture of the altar. clearly, “ad orientem” is a valid option, but the GIRM voices preference for “ad populum.” that preference is emphasized by saying that altars “should be built apart from the wall” in order to eliminate places where the option is not possible. thus in any newly built place, “ad populum” becomes the preference.

also, the instructions in the GIRM are not merely descriptive. they are there to assure that certain things happen at the proper time, and to eliminate the possibility of doing otherwise. thus, since the priest could be facing in either direction, n. 157 assures that the elevation occurs facing the people for the sake of their veneration of the Lamb. likewise, in n. 158, the instruction assures that the priest consumes the Eucharist at, and over, the altar, instead of something else.

btw, n. 157 does not instruct him to turn. the english has “facing the people” which is correct. the latin reads: “tenens [hostia], versus ad populum, dicit:…” (holding the Host, facing (directed toward) the people, he says…) versus is an adjective, not a verb. the same goes for n.158. stans is the present active participle “standing” and conversus is the perfect passive participle “turned directly toward”. it says “[the priest] standing at the altar turned directly toward [it]”.

sorry, i don’t mean to be picky, but that’s the latin. if he were instructed to do some turning, it would say “vertit” and “convertit” in the same way that it says “dicit”.

the instructions are given so that both options are operable.

personally, i think all this started because of the instructions about the tabernacle following Vatican II. previously, in order to show that the Eucharist is exaulted by the Church, the tabernacle was front and center in all (or most) Churches. then came instructions like GIRM 315 that say the tabernacle shouldn’t be on the altar used during the Mass. implementation became jumbled. some put in new altars, as in n. 299. some moved the tabernacle and continued to use the high altar ad orientem. some moved the tabernacle and faced the people. some did neither, which IMO is like saying ‘i don’t care what is preferred or better.’ anyhow, i think this is why this discussion has lingered so long. but that’s just my take on it.

 

[SFH]

JustSomeGuy:

i don’t agree with saying that “ad orientem” is “the default”. i don’t think we need to look for hidden clues in the GIRM.

in 299, it says “…and [in such a way] that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” the “whereever” is governed by the architecture of the altar. clearly, “ad orientem” is a valid option, but the GIRM voices preference for “ad populum.” that preference is emphasized by saying that altars “should be built apart from the wall” in order to eliminate places where the option is not possible. thus in any newly built place, “ad populum” becomes the preference.

I believe the Congregation for Divine Worship was asked about this specific passage and stated that the language should not be read to exclude ad orientem or give a preference to ad populum (i.e., either one is acceptable).

 

[JustSomeGuy]

SFH:

I believe the Congregation for Divine Worship was asked about this specific passage and stated that the language should not be read to exclude ad orientem or give a preference to ad populum (i.e., either one is acceptable).

i remember reading the congregation’s protocol after reading a linked article in these forums. the protocol was given to settle a dispute where a bishop had forbidden the ‘ad orientem’ option. i remember that it said that both were valid, but i don’t remember it saying equally valid. that protocol mentioned GIRM 299 also. as far as i know, that’s the only place in the whole GIRM where preference to the priest’s direction is even hinted at.

i went back to a previous post of mine about that protocol. i can tell that it did not impress me as saying ‘equal’ at the time. i made the same point there that i made here. here is a piece from that, which i may have misunderstood.

JustSomeGuy:

in GIRM 299 “…facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” from the protocol by the Congragation of Divine Worship "Before all else, it is to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum."

from this, i thought that the “suggestion” concerning the altar meant to ‘suggest’ the reasons for building the altar separate from the wall. that is, ‘we suggest the altar be so built, because Mass ‘versus ad populum’ is desirable.’

but now, because of your question, i took another look at both the latin and the english. now, i think that the protocol says, ‘the construction is suggested’. my reading of the english and the latin isn’t crazy, but the protocol makes more sense if the GIRM is read as ‘the construction is desirable wherever possible.’ really, neither the english nor the latin is grammatically definitive IMO, but one reading is less odd than the other.

here’s the latin:

Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratioversus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.

here’s the english:

The altar should be built apart 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.

in the english, it is unclear if the “which” applies just to the direction of the priest or to the clause “in such a way that…” (an expression that the latin lacks) or to the main verb “built”. the same goes for the quod in latin. but the “wherever” makes more sense applied to the building of the altar, since it talks about the limit of the place. what i mean is that i now think if it meant to endorse facing the people, it would say in both languages ‘because facing the people is desirable’, which it clearly doesn’t.

so now i have no reason to think that one is preferred over the other. the GIRM doesn’t say ‘ad orientem’ is preferred either. it is silent on the issue, which probably means no preferrence. you were probably right to have read the protocol as saying they are equal. i just put in that long explanation so i won’t look so dumb.