Ordinary Form Ad Orientem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Inquisitor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An Archbishop or Bishop cannot prevent a priest from saying the TLM but they do so all the time. It boils down to not wanting to tick off the boss. Lets face it, the “boss” can make a young priest pretty miserable IF he so chooses. :yup:
 
The Archdiocese of Glasgow requires each parish to offer at least one TLM mass. I wish that all diocese did this (offering at least one TLM and one Novus Ordo, that way all laity have access to which ever they choose).
 
The Archdiocese of Glasgow requires each parish to offer at least one TLM mass.
Glasgow in Scotland? Sadly, I’d be very suprised if that is accurate. I think it is rather difficult to get EF Masses in Scotland - and certainly not one in every parish. Where did you hear of this?
 
Glasgow in Scotland? Sadly, I’d be very suprised if that is accurate. I think it is rather difficult to get EF Masses in Scotland - and certainly not one in every parish. Where did you hear of this?
I heard about it because I was at a parish when the Archbishop announced it and it took effect. Therefore, the accuracy is based upon my being there.
 
The practice of celebrating the Eucharist “ad orientam” has never been a universal one as in practiced at all times in all places. This didn’t even become an issue until long after the supreme emphasis on the distinctive role of the priest in the Mass made it appear that the laity had no essential role to play other than through their prayers of devotion. In the church, practice usually precedes theologizing. Thus enters the apocalyptic imagery of Christ coming again in glory from the “east”. This should obviously be about poetry and not geography. Christ is the Light, and the light of the son/sun arises from the east. While a great many churches were designed with the altar at their eastern-most end, that is not true of all churches, including the great Basilica of St. Peter. There, when the Pope celebrates the altar “ad populum”, he is, indeed facing the east.

This whole issue should not have anything to do with locating the presence of God in a particular geographical direction. The Risen Lord is in our midst. He is present in the proclamation of the Word. He is present in the person of the bishop or priest. He is most especially present–Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity–upon the altar in the consecrated species. To insist that it is somehow a superior practice for the priest and people to face the east is, to my mind, gratuitous. One can certainly make a case for it, just as one can make a case for facing the people. That would be the people in whom God takes delight, the people in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, the people who became one with Christ in Baptism, the people among whom Jesus Christ is present because two or more are gathered, the people who comprise a nation of priests.

When one properly understands the importance of balancing the roles of both priest and people, the direction the priest is facing takes on a whole new perspective.

There have been calumnies committed against those of us priests who have striven over the past four decades to implement both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and all the authoritative documents which followed it. We have been accused of irreverence because we don’t hold our hands in a particular way, or because we often refrain from using incense so as not to create health hazards for older people with breathing problems, or because we prefer to wear one kind of vestment over another, or because we find the use of lace effeminate, or because we choose not to wear cassocks, or choose not to wear an amice. I believe all of these issues are linked together to the notion that once we “turn the altars around” the majesty of the Church will be restored and we will all live happily everafter.
 
The practice of celebrating the Eucharist “ad orientam” has never been a universal one as in practiced at all times in all places. This didn’t even become an issue until long after the supreme emphasis on the distinctive role of the priest in the Mass made it appear that the laity had no essential role to play other than through their prayers of devotion. In the church, practice usually precedes theologizing. Thus enters the apocalyptic imagery of Christ coming again in glory from the “east”. This should obviously be about poetry and not geography. Christ is the Light, and the light of the son/sun arises from the east. While a great many churches were designed with the altar at their eastern-most end, that is not true of all churches, including the great Basilica of St. Peter. There, when the Pope celebrates the altar “ad populum”, he is, indeed facing the east.
It is true that the altar in St Peter’s is at the western end, so when the Pope celebrates the Mass versus populum he is actually facing east. However, in the early days of the Church it was seen as important for all people to pray facing the east. So, in the case of a church such as St Peter’s, the first part of the Mass - the Liturgy of the Word - would be celebrated with the priest versus populum; at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist the priest would say “conversi ad Dominum” - “turn to the Lord” - and the congregation would turn 180 degrees and face east. Hence, the priest would actually be celebrating the Holy Sacrifice behind the congregation. Some books by Michael Davies go into detail on this concept. Of course, the model that Pope Benedict is giving now, if the people aren’t all praying in the same direction, is that they should be “oriented” by a Crucifix placed on the centre of the altar.
 
The practice of celebrating the Eucharist “ad orientam” has never been a universal one as in practiced at all times in all places. This didn’t even become an issue until long after the supreme emphasis on the distinctive role of the priest in the Mass made it appear that the laity had no essential role to play other than through their prayers of devotion. In the church, practice usually precedes theologizing. Thus enters the apocalyptic imagery of Christ coming again in glory from the “east”. This should obviously be about poetry and not geography. Christ is the Light, and the light of the son/sun arises from the east. While a great many churches were designed with the altar at their eastern-most end, that is not true of all churches, including the great Basilica of St. Peter. There, when the Pope celebrates the altar “ad populum”, he is, indeed facing the east.

This whole issue should not have anything to do with locating the presence of God in a particular geographical direction. The Risen Lord is in our midst. He is present in the proclamation of the Word. He is present in the person of the bishop or priest. He is most especially present–Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity–upon the altar in the consecrated species. To insist that it is somehow a superior practice for the priest and people to face the east is, to my mind, gratuitous. One can certainly make a case for it, just as one can make a case for facing the people. That would be the people in whom God takes delight, the people in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, the people who became one with Christ in Baptism, the people among whom Jesus Christ is present because two or more are gathered, the people who comprise a nation of priests.

When one properly understands the importance of balancing the roles of both priest and people, the direction the priest is facing takes on a whole new perspective.

There have been calumnies committed against those of us priests who have striven over the past four decades to implement both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and all the authoritative documents which followed it. We have been accused of irreverence because we don’t hold our hands in a particular way, or because we often refrain from using incense so as not to create health hazards for older people with breathing problems, or because we prefer to wear one kind of vestment over another, or because we find the use of lace effeminate, or because we choose not to wear cassocks, or choose not to wear an amice. I believe all of these issues are linked together to the notion that once we “turn the altars around” the majesty of the Church will be restored and we will all live happily everafter.
In the words of Darth Vader “I find your lack [of liturgical history] disturbing” (okay, so I added some words there, and it’s probably not great that an evil character is saying that which analogizes me to evil. But oh well).

Priests for HUNDREDS of years have celebrated ad orientem. You seem to mistake the fact that ad orientem and versus populum are contrary. Actually, they have both been done at the same time in places like St. Peter’s Basilica. In fact, in some major basilicas, the congregation would stand and put their backs to the Eucharist in order to face the East and the same way as the priest (because the priest was facing ad orientem). So, no, it’s not about and has never been about discouraging the laity from participating, but it is certainly about theology. If it was about discouraging the laity from participation, how do you make sense of the people turning their backs to the Eucharist in order to face the East after the Consecration?

For evidence of what I have said above, one can read Architecture in Communion: Implementing the Second Vatican Council Through Liturgy and Architecture by Steven J. Schloeder (this is an amazing book that should be read by any Catholic that wants a base understanding of the Liturgy in relation with architecture including the confessional booth, altar, shape of church, tabernacle, statuary, baptismal font, and many other things).
 
It is true that the altar in St Peter’s is at the western end, so when the Pope celebrates the Mass versus populum he is actually facing east. However, in the early days of the Church it was seen as important for all people to pray facing the east. So, in the case of a church such as St Peter’s, the first part of the Mass - the Liturgy of the Word - would be celebrated with the priest versus populum; at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist the priest would say “conversi ad Dominum” - “turn to the Lord” - and the congregation would turn 180 degrees and face east. Hence, the priest would actually be celebrating the Holy Sacrifice behind the congregation. Some books by Michael Davies go into detail on this concept. Of course, the model that Pope Benedict is giving now, if the people aren’t all praying in the same direction, is that they should be “oriented” by a Crucifix placed on the centre of the altar.
Dang it, NPC beat me to the draw. Cardboard cookie for you.
 
That awesome that he “got told” haha. But aren’t they still obligated to celebrate versus populum for televised Masses?
We shouldn’t rejoice in a Bishop getting “told off”, but we do pray that they be pious and orthodox Bishops. We rejoice when orthodoxy is allowed and practiced.
 
Vincent,
The young priest might indeed be willing, but the pastor might not allow it. The pastor’s reasoning might be wrong, his justification from liturgical law might be wrong, but if he doesn’t want it done that way in his parish church, the asistant has an obligation to abide by the pastor’s decision. .
I would caveat that by stating that the assistant might find it prudent to comply with the pastor’s wishes, but it would not rise to the level of an obligation.

A pastor cannot regulate in an area the bishop himself cannot regulate in, as the pastor receives his authority from the bishop.

My recommendation would be Vincent is simply to call the Chancellery and determine if the pastor’s statement is factual or not. Not in an accusatory way, but as a simple request

“My fiancée and are looking to request an ad orientem Nuptial Mass, does the diocese have a prohibition against having such a liturgy?”

Bring that to the pastor if it becomes an issue. Having factual information upon which to base judgements is never a bad thing.
 
As we have found with the recent indult for the EF. Bishops have other ways of making sure something does not happen if outright forbidding does not work…

Transfers, pairing up with a priest who would not do this, or just flat out politics is within a Bishop’s realm.

Sometimes this bothers me about issues like the OP. But other times I realize that if the Bishops did not have this way of doing things some pretty odd and bad things could happen in the Mass… I just wish it was applied uniformly. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top