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

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . How would a Catholic who needs externals fare under such conditions? . . .

Good points to consider, Cat.

 

[floresco]

I am not quite sure where you are going with this.
The OP asked if this was realted to VII, and I linked a document that talks about what the reform of the litugy should be*** at that time***.
I am not exactly sure what this has to do with what was asked in the OP.

The document you linked to and the the section of the GIRM based on it were often misunderstood as saying that Mass should be celebrated ad populum. I wanted to clarify that, while allowed, it was neither obligatory nor even recommended.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . whether *ad orientem *should be celebrated in the OF liturgy . . . that is what I responded to.

Okay–sorry, I misunderstood.

Nor is it my theology of liturgy, but the Church’s . . .

Could you provide some references to Church documents? Anyone can proof-text with scripture.

Versus populum is stilll the discipline used in almost every OF liturgy. Do you agree?

Yes; what I meant was, while versus populum is now, de facto, the norm in the Latin Church, *ad orientem *lives on in the old Roman liturgy and is still, AFAIK, the norm in the Eastern liturgies. As to the new Roman liturgy, I think there is reasonable debate what the framers’ intentions were.

 

[Sirach2]

Could you provide some references to Church documents? Anyone can proof-text with scripture.

How much have you studied the Old Testament with regard to the positioning and elements in the Temple? Are you aware that God Himself ordained these to Moses?
I’m getting ready for mass — will get back to you, hopefully later.

Yes; what I meant was, while versus populum is now, de facto, the norm in the Latin Church, *ad orientem *lives on in the old Roman liturgy and is still, AFAIK, the norm in the Eastern liturgies. As to the new Roman liturgy, I think there is reasonable debate what the framers’ intentions were.

Whether the intentions were initially misunderstood or not, this is the discipline that is used world-wide, not just here in the USA, and it is also used by our popes. Unless, or until the clergy is given a mandate to return to the older position, I believe it will remain the constant position of the celebrant in the OF liturgy. Let me get back to you on this with regard to the theology.

 

[floresco]

Yes; what I meant was, while versus populum is now, de facto, the norm in the Latin Church, *ad orientem *lives on in the old Roman liturgy and is still, AFAIK, the norm in the Eastern liturgies. As to the new Roman liturgy, I think there is reasonable debate what the framers’ intentions were.

I discussed this question extensively with sirach some time ago and came to the conclusion that he did not have a good understanding of the issue. You may see the thread in which we discussed it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=656258

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco:

Oneofthewomen:

The OP asked if this was realted to VII, and I linked a document that talks about what the reform of the litugy should be*** at that time***

.
I am not exactly sure what this has to do with what was asked in the OP.

The document you linked to and the the section of the GIRM based on it were often misunderstood as saying that Mass should be celebrated ad populum. I wanted to clarify that, while allowed, it was neither obligatory nor even recommended.

In posting the response from the CDWDS, Floresco omitted these latter paragraphs, which are very critical to understanding the CDW’s position.

However, whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as His instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the Eucharistic Synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community. If the priest celebrates *versus populum, *which is a legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be *versus Deum per Jesus Christum *[toward God through Jesus Christ], as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned *versus Deum *[towards God] as its first spiritual movement.

It appears that the ancient tradition, though not without exception, was that the celebrant and the praying community were turned versus orientem [toward the East], the direction from which the Light which is Christ comes. It is not unusual for ancient churches to be “oriented” so that the priest and the people were turned versus orientem during public prayer.

It may be that when there were problems of space, or of some other kind, the apse represented the East symbolically. Today the expression *versus orientem *often means versus apsidem, and in speaking of versus populum it is not the west but rather the community present that is meant.

There is no need to give excessive importance to elements that have changed throughout the centuries. What always remains is the event celebrated in the liturgy: this is manifested through rites, signs, symbols and words that express various aspects of the mystery without, however, exhausting it, because it transcends them. Taking a rigid position and absolutizing it could become a rejection of some aspect of the truth which merits respect and acceptance.

 

[ProVobis]

What happens when these externals are stripped away?

But don’t body, sign, and symbol language mean something in communication, almost if not more important than verbal communication?

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach2:

**Taking a rigid position and absolutizing it could become a rejection of some aspect of the truth which merits respect and acceptance. **

I sense another contentious dispute with post 55 made by Floresco. Let me just prevent this by echoing the above quote and reminding everyone that both forms are allowed in liturgical celebrations, and the orientation is *versus Deum per Jesus Christum *[toward God through Jesus Christ].

 

[mangy_dog]

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

Versus Populi is the mass with the priest facing the people, standing behind the altar.

Ad Orientem is the tradional way in which the priest and the people face in the same direction with the Tabernacle on the altar instead of off to one side or some other less prominent location of the church.

 

[ProVobis]

Here is an explanation that shows how this ought to be understood:

I don’t have the 1965 or 1967 Missal but wasn’t the *ad Sancta Sanctorum *(into the Holy of Holies) reference removed from the Mass, thereby removing the importance of the tabernacle (and therefore facing it) during Mass? I know the 69 Missal didn’t have it.

 

[mangy_dog]

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.

It will happen-in due time. And, remember that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church is hierarchical. Pope Benedict was obedient and still is to a higher cause and calling. Not the popular winds of change or [mind of the church].

When kneeling-it is done out of respect and devotion to the Most Holy Eucharist and not for the pope.

The only rift that was created and is still widening is among the modernist/liberal catholics that think that the church and it’s hierarchy should aquiesce to popular opinion and new age trends.

It’s not “personal preference”…it is the proper reverence and devotion lacking in so many so called catholics who see liturgical abuses occuring every week in mass and just go along because it’s modern and it’s in keeping with the times.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

In posting the response from the CDWDS, Floresco omitted these latter paragraphs, which are very critical to understanding the CDW’s position.

Thank you for this Sirach2, I though that what Floesco post was a little disjointed.

Reading the rest of it, I am still not sure how it pertains to the original question.
Oh, well.

 

[Rich_C]

I can’t help but worry about people who have this approach to their faith.

What happens when these externals are stripped away?

You know all about Auschwitz and St. Maximillian Kolbe. When I went to see the “Treasures of the Vatican” exhibit at the Milwaukee museum a few years ago, there were many many beautiful treasures, some of them priceless because of the gold and jewels. But to me, the most stirring treasure was a simple can lid and a little shot glass. These were what Father Kolbe used to celebrate Mass at Auschwitz. He didn’t have any of the externals, and considering the conditions of the concentration camp and the horrible treatment of the prisoners, it’s doubtful that the Mass looked or sounded anything at all like it did in the Catholic churches of that time.

How would a Catholic who needs externals fare under such conditions?

It seems to me you’ve missed the point.

People say the actions of the priest are very important to their experience at Mass. You start talking about gold patens and can lids. Do you see that you’re missing the point?

I’m sure St. Maximilian did his best to do the same actions when celebrating Mass in the death camp as he did in his parish. It’s an assumption but a safe one, considering he’s a canonized saint.

So you’ve proved his point, not yours.

 

[floresco]

.
Reading the rest of it, I am still not sure how it pertains to the original question.
Oh, well.

Because people misunderstood the permission to say Mass ad populum as an obligation to do so, many beautiful and sacred altars were destroyed. So when the topic comes up, I like to make sure that everyone is clear on the distinction. In the OF of the Mass, it is permitted to say celebrate Mass facing the people, but it has never been required by the Church. It has never even been recommended.

 

[floresco]

I apologize to Sirach2 for the tactlessness of my comment concerning him in this thread and for the bad feeling that I caused between us in the older thread I cited. I ask for forgiveness and a chance to start over, letting go of all hostility between us.

 

[Sirach2]

I apologize to Sirach2 for the tactlessness of my comment concerning him in this thread and for the bad feeling that I caused between us in the older thread I cited. I ask for forgiveness and a chance to start over, letting go of all hostility between us.

:hug3:I welcome that very much. God bless!

 

[thewanderer]

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?

I am a little confused. There seems to be a discrepency between the title of this thread and the OP’s question. The title seems to suggest that priests are still required to celebrate ad orientem, ie, that they are not allowed to celebrate ad populum. However the question in the post is not asking whether or not priests are still allowed to celebrate ad populum, but is instead asking if they are allowed to celebrate ad orientem. The answer is, of course, that both are allowed and neither is required in and of itself.

 

[floresco]

:hug3:I welcome that very much. God bless!

Thank you.

 

[felsguy]

It’s not “personal preference”…it is the proper reverence and devotion** lacking in so many so called catholics who see liturgical abuses occuring every week in mass and just go along because it’s modern and it’s in keeping with the times**.

Really now?

.