How one picture makes the case for ad orientem.

[twf]

No.

Father,
I believe the poster you’re addressing would have a more Eastern perspective on icons. Icons, in the East, are certainly not mere art, and their veneration is absolutely essential to the liturgy. The crucifix, while venerated in the Western tradition, does not play the same role in our liturgy.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

If anything, it seems to be suggesting that we offer Christ to Himself. Totally bad theology, and apart from that, looking like idolatry in that the Host is being offered to the carved crucifix.

In my humble opinion, anyone interpreting this photo in the way you say, is in error about what Communion is all about.
And as a result,
erroneously misinterpreted that photo into the way you have interpreted the photo.

You are not alone in your interpretation.

How can the Catholic Church’s greatest miracle be so misunderstood?

 

[LiamQ]

Agreed. I don’t see it making the case at all.

I don’t it “makes the case,” either.

But my recently visiting a parish where the Priest celebrates Holy Mass with this posture certainly did.

 

[LiamQ]

If anything, it seems to be suggesting that we offer Christ to Himself. Totally bad theology, and apart from that, looking like idolatry in that the Host is being offered to the carved crucifix.

I thought the author did a wonderful job explaining that they thought this image so powerfully communicates what the Holy Mass is: a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

I can’t look at that photo and say they’re wrong, or way off base. What the Priest is holding in his hands = what the Crucifix is only symbolically communicating.

I think that’s quite lovely.

 

[LiamQ]

Frankly, this drawing is non-sensical to me.

It makes more sense if one replaces the Crucifix with a Tabernacle.

 

[otjm]

So this elevation, is it our Eucharistic Christ held up toward the Father, or is it an elevation to allow the people to venerate? It seems to me, the people are to venerate at “Behold, the Lamb…” not at this elevation, which is to God the Father… hence the confusion that versus populum ensues. One knows not to whom certain gestures and statements are directed.

Well, back before Vatican 2, everyone I knew then, if asked, would have said they venerated the Eucharist at the elevation during the Consecration, and I suspect some might have even said they wished they could see the Consecration.

 

[otjm]

I thought the author did a wonderful job explaining that they thought this image so powerfully communicates what the Holy Mass is: a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

I can’t look at that photo and say they’re wrong, or way off base. What the Priest is holding in his hands = what the Crucifix is only symbolically communicating.

I think that’s quite lovely.

I would hope that you are not implying that ad populum does not communicate the anamnesis of Calvary, as well as the Last Supper.

 

[InThePew]

The picture speaks of the relationship between Christ, the priest and the eucharist as part of the sacrifice of the mass. When the priest elevates the host, there’s a visible link between him (acting in the person of Christ), the presence of Christ in the eucharist and the image of Christ on the cross. However, this relationship is evidence regardless of whether the priest is facing ad orientem or towards the people.

 

[Vico]

So this elevation, is it our Eucharistic Christ held up toward the Father, or is it an elevation to allow the people to venerate? It seems to me, the people are to venerate at “Behold, the Lamb…” not at this elevation, which is to God the Father… hence the confusion that versus populum ensues. One knows not to whom certain gestures and statements are directed.

That elevation at the Consecration was added about year 1200 A.D. in the Latin Rite, to counter the errors of Peter Comestor and Peter the Chanter, that there was no conversion at the words spoken over the bread but only later at the words spoken over the chalice (wine). Pope Gregory X ordered the elevation to be included in the Mass.

 

[Pulvis]

That elevation at the Consecration was added about year 1200 A.D. in the Latin Rite, to counter the errors of Peter Comestor and Peter the Chanter, that there was no conversion at the words spoken over the bread but only later at the words spoken over the chalice (wine). Pope Gregory X ordered the elevation to be included in the Mass.

Thank you for this.

 

[Pulvis]

Another, “slightly more humorous” picture, but demonstrates the principle of ad orientem worship.

4.bp.blogspot.com/-aTCE36-iryw/WFEsNqTTuOI/AAAAAAAAJoo/-jw6rXvPv3Q6x9lacPsDjxpOiE-h1UizwCLcB/s1600/which-makes-sense.jpg

:yup:

 

[Casilda]

"Written over 200 years ago by Rev Fr Leonard Goffine in his book, The Church’s Year. (Among other books,
catholicsaints.info/father-leonard-goffine/ )

Meaning of the Ceremonies at Mass

1. The Priest Goes to the altar - Christ Goes to Mount Olivet.
   2 The Priest Commences Mass - Christ Begins to pray.
   3 The Priest Says Confiteor - Christ Falls down and sweats blood.
   4 The Priest Goes up and kisses the altar - Christ Is betrayed by Judas with a kiss.
   5 The Priest Goes to the Epistle side - Christ Is captured, bound, and taken to Annas
   6 The Priest Reads the Introit - Christ Is falsely accused by Annas and blasphemed.
   7 The Priest Goes to the middle of the altar and says the Kyrie eleison - Christ Is brought to Caiphas and there three times denied by Peter.
   8 The Priest Says the Dominus vobiscum - Christ Looks at Peter and converts him.
   9 The Priest Reads the Epistle - Christ Is brought to Pilate.
   10 The Priest Says the Munda cor meum at the middle of the altar - Christ Is taken to Herod and mocked.
   11 The Priest Reads the Gospel - Christ Is taken back to Pilate and again mocked.
   12 The Priest Uncovers the chalice - Christ Is shamefully exposed.
   13 The Priest Offers bread and wine - Christ Is cruelly scourged.
   14 The PriestCovers the chalice - Christ Is crowned with thorns.
   15 The Priest Washes his hands - Christ Is declared innocent by Pilate.
   16 The Priest Says the Orate Fratres - Christ Is shown by Pilate to the people with the words, Ecce Homo.
   17 The Priest Prays in a low voice - Christ Is mocked and spit upon.
   18 The Priest Says the Preface and the Sanctus - Christ Is preferred instead of Barrabas and condemned to crucifixion.
   19 The Priest Makes the Memento for the living - Christ Carries the cross to Mount Calvary.
   20 The Priest Continues to pray the Canon in a low voice - Christ Meets His Mother and the other pious women.
   21 The Priest Blesses the bread and wine with the sign of the cross - Christ Is nailed to the cross.
   22 The Priest Elevates the Sacred Host - Christ Is raised on the cross.
   23 The Priest Elevates the chalice - Christ Sheds blood from the five wounds.
   24 The Priest Prays in a low voice - Christ Sees His afflicted Mother at the cross.
   25 The Priest Says aloud, Nobis queque peccatoribus - Christ Prays on the cross for men.
   26 The Priest Says aloud the Pater noster - Christ Says the seven last words on the cross.
   27 The Priest Breaks and separates the Host - Christ Gives up His spirit and dies.
   28 The Priest Lets a small portion of the sacred Host fall into the chalice - Christ His soul descends to Limbo.
   29 The Priest Says the Agnus Dei - Christ Is acknowledged on the cross as the Son of God by many bystanders.
   30 The Priest Administers Holy Communion - Christ Is laid in the tomb.
   31 The Priest Cleanses the chalice - Christ Is anointed by pious women.
   32 The Priest Prepares the chalice again - Christ Rises from the dead.
   33 The Priest Says the Dominus vobiscum - Christ Appears to His Mother and the disciples.
   34 The Priest Says the last prayers - Christ Teaches for forty days.
   35 The Priest Says the last Dominus vobiscum - Christ Takes leave of His disciples and ascends to heaven.
   36 The Priest Gives the benediction to the people - Christ Sends down the Holy Ghost
   37 The Priest Says the Ita Missa est and the last Gospel - Christ Sends the apostles into all parts of the world to preach the Gospel."

 

[7_Sorrows]

"Written over 200 years ago by Rev Fr Leonard Goffine in his book, The Church’s Year. (Among other books,
catholicsaints.info/father-leonard-goffine/ )

Meaning of the Ceremonies at Mass

1. The Priest Goes to the altar - Christ Goes to Mount Olivet.
   2 The Priest Commences Mass - Christ Begins to pray.
   3 The Priest Says Confiteor - Christ Falls down and sweats blood.
   4 The Priest Goes up and kisses the altar - Christ Is betrayed by Judas with a kiss.
   5 The Priest Goes to the Epistle side - Christ Is captured, bound, and taken to Annas
   6 The Priest Reads the Introit - Christ Is falsely accused by Annas and blasphemed.
   7 The Priest Goes to the middle of the altar and says the Kyrie eleison - Christ Is brought to Caiphas and there three times denied by Peter.
   8 The Priest Says the Dominus vobiscum - Christ Looks at Peter and converts him.
   9 The Priest Reads the Epistle - Christ Is brought to Pilate.
   10 The Priest Says the Munda cor meum at the middle of the altar - Christ Is taken to Herod and mocked.
   11 The Priest Reads the Gospel - Christ Is taken back to Pilate and again mocked.
   12 The Priest Uncovers the chalice - Christ Is shamefully exposed.
   13 The Priest Offers bread and wine - Christ Is cruelly scourged.
   14 The PriestCovers the chalice - Christ Is crowned with thorns.
   15 The Priest Washes his hands - Christ Is declared innocent by Pilate.
   16 The Priest Says the Orate Fratres - Christ Is shown by Pilate to the people with the words, Ecce Homo.
   17 The Priest Prays in a low voice - Christ Is mocked and spit upon.
   18 The Priest Says the Preface and the Sanctus - Christ Is preferred instead of Barrabas and condemned to crucifixion.
   19 The Priest Makes the Memento for the living - Christ Carries the cross to Mount Calvary.
   20 The Priest Continues to pray the Canon in a low voice - Christ Meets His Mother and the other pious women.
   21 The Priest Blesses the bread and wine with the sign of the cross - Christ Is nailed to the cross.
   22 The Priest Elevates the Sacred Host - Christ Is raised on the cross.
   23 The Priest Elevates the chalice - Christ Sheds blood from the five wounds.
   24 The Priest Prays in a low voice - Christ Sees His afflicted Mother at the cross.
   25 The Priest Says aloud, Nobis queque peccatoribus - Christ Prays on the cross for men.
   26 The Priest Says aloud the Pater noster - Christ Says the seven last words on the cross.
   27 The Priest Breaks and separates the Host - Christ Gives up His spirit and dies.
   28 The Priest Lets a small portion of the sacred Host fall into the chalice - Christ His soul descends to Limbo.
   29 The Priest Says the Agnus Dei - Christ Is acknowledged on the cross as the Son of God by many bystanders.
   30 The Priest Administers Holy Communion - Christ Is laid in the tomb.
   31 The Priest Cleanses the chalice - Christ Is anointed by pious women.
   32 The Priest Prepares the chalice again - Christ Rises from the dead.
   33 The Priest Says the Dominus vobiscum - Christ Appears to His Mother and the disciples.
   34 The Priest Says the last prayers - Christ Teaches for forty days.
   35 The Priest Says the last Dominus vobiscum - Christ Takes leave of His disciples and ascends to heaven.
   36 The Priest Gives the benediction to the people - Christ Sends down the Holy Ghost
   37 The Priest Says the Ita Missa est and the last Gospel - Christ Sends the apostles into all parts of the world to preach the Gospel."

Beautiful! Thanks for sharing this.

 

[goout]

Frankly, this drawing is non-sensical to me. In all my decades of the priesthood, I have never lifted my head to address a carved work of art…least of all to act as though it was the Lord I was addressing. It is a piece of art.

Of course we do not confuse the statue with the actual Lord Jesus. That would be idol worship, which we Catholics are accused of often enough.

The statue is a sign of Jesus. So the statue signifies a deeper reality, which is pretty much the definition of a “sacramental”.

The priest has too look somewhere, I’m not sure why facing a work of art that is designed to immerse us in the Lord is nonsensical. And better yet if the tabernacle is right there as well.

It is a piece of art like you say, but it’s not just a piece of art.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Of course we do not confuse the statue with the actual Lord Jesus. That would be idol worship, which we Catholics are accused of often enough.

The statue is a sign of Jesus. So the statue signifies a deeper reality, which is pretty much the definition of a “sacramental”.

The priest has too look somewhere, I’m not sure why facing a work of art that is designed to immerse us in the Lord is nonsensical. And better yet if the tabernacle is right there as well.

It is a piece of art like you say, but it’s not just a piece of art.

As a professor of liturgy and sacraments to those preparing for priesthood, I lectured extensively on the theology of sign…and, in reality, from the perspective of theology, this photo communicates, actually, very little to a theologian.

The presence of the reserved sacrament would not enhance the image at all since you have the dynamic Presence being depicted…as opposed simply to its static Presence.

Having presided at Eucharist across decades, in the moment that is being depicted, I am showing the consecrated element to the faithful or else, for my private Masses, holding it so that I can see it…not holding it up to a crucifix The presence of the crucifix is not even remotely of concern to me at this moment of the liturgy…and won’t be again until the sacrament is reserved.

 

[goout]

As a professor of liturgy and sacraments to those preparing for priesthood, I lectured extensively on the theology of sign…and, in reality, from the perspective of theology, this photo communicates, actually, very little to a theologian.

The presence of the reserved sacrament would not enhance the image at all since you have the dynamic Presence being depicted…as opposed simply to its static Presence.

Having presided at Eucharist across decades, in the moment that is being depicted, I am showing the consecrated element to the faithful or else, for my private Masses, holding it so that I can see it…not holding it up to a crucifix The presence of the crucifix is not even remotely of concern to me at this moment of the liturgy…and won’t be again until the sacrament is reserved.

I get that, and and the same time I think that posture and the corpus have a deeply significant value. It is not nonsensical to me or just another work of art.

I am not advocating for any particular posture. I see the value in both.

It would not hurt our individualistic culture to focus on the fact that God himself is the focus of our adoration and praise, the priest and people as a whole, together.
I am speaking as an American, where the awesome “otherness” of God has been largely lost in favor of humanistic awareness.

 

[OraLabora]

I read much about “ad orientem” that I find difficult to comprehend. But I also read many falsehoods, as if ad orientem was the only posture before Vatican II. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I have an old 1935 Ceremonial that indicates the different possible configurations of a church.

A church without a choir would likely have the altar at the far end of the sanctuary up against the wall. In that configuration ad absidum was the only possible way to celebrate.

Churches with a choir though, such as a cathedral with a chapter of canons or an abbey’s conventual chapel, could have:

Altar at the far back of the sanctuary against the wall; celebration would be towards the apse for everyone.

Altar between the nave and the choir, turned towards the choir. Celebration would be ad absidum for those in the choir, and versus populum for those in the nave.

Altar between the nave and the choir, turned towards the nave. Celebration ad absidum for the faithful in the nave, but versus populum for those in the choir.

Moreover in many of these places, even before the Council, the tabernacle could be in a side chapel. This was often the case in Benedictine abbeys. These indicate that whatever symbolism the fans of “ad orientem” celebration seem to think exists, wasn’t consistently applicable for all participants in the Mass, being ad orientem for the clergy or religious here, and ad orientem for the faithful there. So what is the symbolism in that? There isn’t any that I can discern.

We mustn’t confuse nostalgia for what happened in the local parish church with being the truth everywhere. Nor should we confuse entrenched customs as written in stone and immutable. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia from an article written in 1910:

When the custom of erecting the episcopal throne on the gospel side of the sanctuary became prevalent, the high altar was removed nearer to the wall of the apse. The object of this was that sufficient space might be allowed between the lowest step of the altar and the communion-rail (six to twelve feet) for the proper carrying out of the ceremonial, and for the accommodation of the clergy who frequently assisted in large numbers at the solemn celebration of Mass and of the Divine Offices.

Prior to that, the cathedra was at the apse and the altar in the middle of the sanctuary. It seems to me then that the reason for an altar configuration that obliges celebration towards the apse was entirely practical, and not symbolic.

The only thing that the picture conveys to me is that the altar in that particular church is configured in such a way that ad absidem is the only reasonable option to celebrate Mass. Indeed the picture shows that it is an altar against a wall, and thus there is no opportunity for the priest to celebrate in the other direction, assuming there isn’t another free standing altar behind the priest.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Frankly, this drawing is non-sensical to me. In all my decades of the priesthood, I have never lifted my head to address a carved work of art…least of all to act as though it was the Lord I was addressing. It is a piece of art.

It would perhaps make more sense if you consider that in most (but admittedly not all) Churches which have ad orientem Mass (in the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form) typically have the Tabernacle on the Altar itself, rather than in a side chapel. That way the elevation is not simply happening “facing a Crucifix”, but facing the Blessed Sacrament. Throughout a Mass ad orientem, the entire congregation and the Priest face in the same direction towards the Altar on which the Blessed Sacrament is reserved as an act of recognition and worship towards a single focal point: God present among us on His Altar.

That’s not to say there’s not theological value in versus populum. In both forms each are done for specific reasons for the expression of a particular theological virtue rather than merely as a “theatrical” preference.

 

[felsguy]

**Well, back before Vatican 2, everyone I knew then, if asked, would have said they venerated the Eucharist at the elevation during the Consecration, **and I suspect some might have even said they wished they could see the Consecration.

That would be my supposition also. I still am in the habit (not that makes me special) acquired 65+ years ago of saying to myself “My Lord and My God” during the Consecration because that’s what our First Communion “prayerbooks” instructed us to do when the priest elevated the host for us to see.

 

[felsguy]

It would perhaps make more sense if you consider that in most (but admittedly not all) Churches which have ad orientem Mass (in the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form) typically have the Tabernacle on the Altar itself, rather than in a side chapel. That way the elevation is not simply happening “facing a Crucifix”, but facing the Blessed Sacrament. Throughout a Mass ad orientem, the entire congregation and the Priest face in the same direction towards the Altar on which the Blessed Sacrament is reserved as an act of recognition and worship towards a single focal point: God present among us on His Altar.

That’s not to say there’s not theological value in versus populum. In both forms each are done for specific reasons for the expression of a particular theological virtue rather than merely as a “theatrical” preference.

This raises for me a question as much from the perspective of logic (a curse from my undergraduate years ) as well as if not more so than of theology. Once the Eucharist has been confected, what (which) then is the “single focal point” of the priest and congregation? Or are there then two?