Novus Ordo mass still require priests to celebrate mass ad orientem?

[PastorBonus]

Typically priests who celebrate mass Novus Ordo celebrate it ad populam, however I have heard many saying that the Vatican II documents actually does not mandate a change in the position. When did this change come about?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

From Inter oecumenci, which is the instruction document given to the Consilium formed by Paul VI for the reform of the liturgy. A very good read!!

II. MAIN ALTAR

1. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.

 

[JM3]

Since the document Inter oecumenci was issued in 1964 and the Mass of Pope Paul VI came 5-6 years later, a logical deduction would be that the EF can be said ad populam.

I wonder why no one has asked for this option?

Maybe we should start a campaign.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Pope Emeritus Benedict, at least at the time he wrote Spirit of the Liturgy as Cardinal Ratzinger, as a big mistakeversus populum. If he didn’t mandate ad orientem during his reign as pope, it is probably because everyone is now so habituated to versus populum, it would be a hard adjustment (or readjustment) for many, and would have to be reintroduced gradually. There are indications he wanted to get the ball rolling in that direction, such as his strong encouragement of the TLM, and talk of “mutual enrichment” in the letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum.

 

[Sirach2]

Pope Emeritus Benedict, at least at the time he wrote Spirit of the Liturgy as Cardinal Ratzinger, regarded the change to versus populum as a big mistake. If he didn’t mandate ad orientem during his reign as pope, it is probably because everyone is now so habituated to versus populum, it would be a hard adjustment (or readjustment) for many, and would have to be reintroduced gradually. There are indications he wanted to get the ball rolling in that direction, such as his strong encouragement of the TLM, and talk of “mutual enrichment” in the letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum.

However, as Pope, he did not issue a motu proprio to change it, as was his right, so why promote something that never happened, probably never will happen, and is simply the personal preference of then Cardinal Ratzinger?

I believe that Pope Benedict, first and foremost, should be the primary example of obedience to what the Church upholds. In this regard, his insistence that he would not give the Eucharist **unless **people were kneeling before him, and on the tongue, gave an expample that was the not expressing the mind of the Church, and has caused a rift among traditionalists who expected this to be changed based on his personal preference.

 

[TimothyH]

I want to see a transversa orientem Mass.

I think the priest should face sideways with the people “At his right hand” and he "At the King’s right hand.

This way no one would be happy and we could all suffer for Christ. Pennance and Mass rolled into one.

Think about it… Yeah, I think that would be Sa-weet!

I’m gonna write a letter to the Archbishop.

-Tim-

 

[Brendan_64]

Since the document Inter oecumenci was issued in 1964 and the Mass of Pope Paul VI came 5-6 years later, a logical deduction would be that the EF can be said ad populam.

Yes indeed. Shame of those EF traditionalists, they should be getting onto their priests and insist that they face the right way (ad populam) during EF Masses, in line with Church teaching

 

[Lucky7]

I can’t be the only one in this forum who has no clue what you guys are talking about…lol.

 

[Brendan_64]

I believe that Pope Benedict, first and foremost, should be the primary example of obedience to what the Church upholds. In this regard, his insistence that he would not give the Eucharist **unless **people were kneeling before him, and on the tongue

As Cardinal Ratzinger he gave Brother Roger Communion in the hand at John Paul II’s funeral.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I can’t be the only one in this forum who has no clue what you guys are talking about…lol.

I think they are a bit punch-drunk. :jrbirdman: :hypno:

 

[clem456]

I want to see a transversa orientem Mass.

I think the priest should face sideways with the people “At his right hand” and he "At the King’s right hand.

This way no one would be happy and we could all suffer for Christ. Pennance and Mass rolled into one.

Think about it… Yeah, I think that would be Sa-weet!

I’m gonna write a letter to the Archbishop.

-Tim-

You are baaaaaaad Tim. That should warrant confession.

But I did laugh about Mass rubrics, so maybe I need to go to confession as well.

 

[Sirach2]

As Cardinal Ratzinger he gave Brother Roger Communion in the hand at John Paul II’s funeral.

What he did as Cardinal was less demonstrative as an example than that which he did as Pope. Didn’t he insist on the prie dieu being brought in for his distribution?

 

[Peerce]

Since the document Inter oecumenci was issued in 1964 and the Mass of Pope Paul VI came 5-6 years later, a logical deduction would be that the EF can be said ad populam.

I wonder why no one has asked for this option?

Maybe we should start a campaign.

No, thanks.

 

[Brendan_64]

What he did as Cardinal was less demonstrative as an example than that which he did as Pope.

That is perhaps true. Although as Pope he did a good job at doing the groundwork for Pope Francis to wash the feet of women. Granting permission for Bishops (on request) to allow their priests to wash women’s feet during the Mandatum. By the time Pope Francis came to do it it was pretty much common practice anyway

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Are there any documents that speak of both the priest *and *the people facing away from each other? What would that be called? Versus Orientem Retro?

 

[SonCatcher]

I want to see a transversa orientem Mass.

I think the priest should face sideways with the people “At his right hand” and he "At the King’s right hand.

This way no one would be happy and we could all suffer for Christ. Pennance and Mass rolled into one.

Think about it… Yeah, I think that would be Sa-weet!

I’m gonna write a letter to the Archbishop.

-Tim-

I’ve seen it. The parish in question had located the altar in the crossing with the cantors and lectors in one semitransept and the sacristy in the other semitransept. The congregation was divided between the nave and “choir”.

 

[IesumPerMariam]

Of course the TLM can be celebrated versus populum: that is how it was done at the Papal Altar of St Peter’s Basilica for over a millenium, because the confessio (the tomb of St Peter) is directly in front of the altar, leaving no room for a priest, deacon and subdeacon to stand in front of the altar facing versus apsidem. The Popes were still facing ad Orientem, however, as the basilica was built so that the Holy Father would face east despite the confessio.

The Missal of Paul VI includes rubrics that seem to imply that the priest is facing the same direction as the congregation (i.e. versus aspidem / ad Orientem).

For example, at the Orate Fratres, we find the rubric: “Stans postea in medio altaris, versus ad populum, extendens et iungens manus, dicit.”

At the Pax, the rubric reads: “Sacerdos, ad populum conversus extendens et iungens manus, subdit.”

At the Ecce Agnus Dei: Sacerdos genuflectit, accipit hostiam, eamque aliquantulum elevatam super patenam vel super calicem tenens, versus ad populum, clara voce dicit:
Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi.
Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati sunt.
Et una cum populo semel subdit:
Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.
Et sacerdos, versus ad altare, secreto dicit:
Corpus Christi custodiat me in vitam aeternam.

At the Postcommunion prayer: “…sacerdos, versus ad populum, iunctis manibus, dicit:”

And, at the Dismissal: “Deinde fit dimissio. Sacerdos, versus ad populum, extendens manus, dicit:”

Clearly the rubrics assume – or at the very least, allow for – facing the congregation and facing the altar to mean opposite directions.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . simply the personal preference of then Cardinal Ratzinger . . .

Sirach2, you seem to have missed the point. What you call “personal preferences” are centuries-old traditions. What you call “the mind of the Church” is historically recent novelties. Pope Emeritus Benedict was not only within his rights to enforce the customs you mention; they are still the universal norm. Communion on the hand is allowed as an *indult *in certain places like the U.S.; it is not an inalienable right. Our current Holy Father is taking a different approach, probably for pastoral reasons, which is also legitimate. But don’t tell me that Pope Benedict was out of step with the mind of the Church.

 

[Sirach2]

What you call “personal preferences” are centuries-old traditions. What you call “the mind of the Church” is historically recent novelties.

Yes, but these particular traditions we are discussing are “disciplines” that are subject to change. They do not fall under the matter of faith or morals. The fact the Church has changed these disciplines does not imply they are in any way wrong, illicit, or not in keeping with the Church’s right to change them.

May I remind you of Vatican 1’s definition:

First Vatican Council
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,

by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience,
and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals …
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

I am very sorry to read that you believe a practice that is lawfully permitted by the Church is a “novelty.” May I suggest that you refine your terminology? Due to being new or recent, does not mean that a grant of indult or any other permissions are therefore, NOT the “Mind of the Church” … especially when She has spoken clearly. We do owe Her our filial submission and obedience.

 

[choliks]

Regarding the OP: In my former diocese (had to transfer to my wife’s), almost all altars are ad orientam and versus populum at the same time. These parishes only celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass (can we use this term instead? I like using the proper terms.).

I mentioned this to a tradionalist priest, and he couldn’t believe it. He even said something outrageous that really shocked me. He said if the Masses were truly ad orientam, the congregation should turn their backs on the priest, and face true east. I had to remind the good father that the congregation should worship the Christ on the altar not geographical east.