Priest's Orientation during Mass

[JimR-OCDS]

This still doesn’t resonate well. Remember, the early Christians believed that Christ would return from the East. Hence, the basis for this posture. Once again, I direct you to the research made by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Why do you seem to ignore what he has said?

The early Christians didn’t have churches but used homes and other places in hiding. So facing the East was not always possible. Also, when they did face East, it was literally East, just as the Jews of that time faced Jerusalem, and later, Muslims face Mecca. Does this mean that all Catholic church buildings should be constructed so that the priest faces compass East?

Also, I think its safe to say, that Jesus, at the Last Supper, did not have have his back facing the Apostles. In fact, being a Seder of that time. they were probably sitting/reclining, around the head table in a sort of U shape, much like you see in the movie, “Jesus of Nazareth”. BTW, I just learned that Pope Paul VI was consulted by the producer, during the creation of that movie. The Apostles were looking at Jesus face, not his back.

I’m not ignoring what then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, I’m just not totally convinced that facing East, is wrong, or that it makes the priest a sort of enterntainer. To me, such a statement seems to suggest that Cardinal Ratzinger saw Catholics as shallow minded.

Also, from what I remember, Pope John Paul II, said Mass facing the people, at public Masses.

What about Pope Benedict XVI at the recent WYD?

So, the priest facing the people is not wrong, and my guess is that it will not change, even under Pope Benedict XVI.

Jim

 

[sphilomena]

This still doesn’t resonate well. Remember, the early Christians believed that Christ would return from the East. Hence, the basis for this posture. Once again, I direct you to the research made by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Why do you seem to ignore what he has said?

Exactly. Then-Card. R., as has been said repeatedly, makes quite a point of this in The Spirit of the Liturgy. It is done because of the belief that Christ will come again from the East, and it was a practice in the Mass for a long time. Now we have the priest acting as an MC at times, emphasizing his interaction with the people.

When people think the primary presence of Jesus is in the people, and not the Eucharist, there needs to be some serious catechesis. It is an error being taught these days.

 

[benedictgal]

Exactly. Then-Card. R., as has been said repeatedly, makes quite a point of this in The Spirit of the Liturgy. It is done because of the belief that Christ will come again from the East, and it was a practice in the Mass for a long time. Now we have the priest acting as an MC at times, emphasizing his interaction with the people.

When people think the primary presence of Jesus is in the people, and not the Eucharist, there needs to be some serious catechesis. It is an error being taught these days.

Thank you for making my point. Even Cardinal Arinze has stated the same thing. When the priest takes the ad orientsum posture, I do not feel “alienated”. He is leading us in prayer.

Jim, you might be interested to know that in the Old Testament, when God told Moses that he would pass by him, all Moses could see was the Lord’s back. Since then, ancient Israel’s prayer has always been to seek the face of God. In the Incarnation, God showed us his face in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. Then Cardinal Ratzinger makes this point so very clear in The Spirit of the Liturgy, which I recommend you pick up and read (of course, he also has something to say about those who rely on pseudo-histories).

Because Jesus is the eternal High Priest, he leads us to the Father. If you are going to lead someone, you need to be standing at the front and facing the same direction as the people you are trying to lead.

Not once in your posts (in this thread) have you referred to the Mass as a Sacrifice. This, in fact, is what it truly is. Jesus is offering Himself to the Father. We join our humble prayers and present ourselves, as sinful as we are, to the Father as well, uniting our imprect prayers with the perfect prayer of Jesus. When the priest takes the ad orientsum posture, he is uniting himself with us, and making the oblation on our behafl.

While you repetedly make the point that Jesus is present in the community of believers assembled at Mass, his primary presence is in the Sacred Species, the Blessed Sacrament. After all, when Jesus said, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age,” his “being wiht us always” has always been understood by the early Church (through the teaching of the Apostles) to mean his Eucharistic presence. Never have any of the documents, as far back as the Didache (which predates your Constantine references by nearly 280 years) does it emphasize his presence in the community. You need to ground yourself in solid, Traditional Catholic theology.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

 

[benedictgal]

The early Christians didn’t have churches but used homes and other places in hiding. So facing the East was not always possible. Also, when they did face East, it was literally East, just as the Jews of that time faced Jerusalem, and later, Muslims face Mecca. Does this mean that all Catholic church buildings should be constructed so that the priest faces compass East?

Also, I think its safe to say, that Jesus, at the Last Supper, did not have have his back facing the Apostles. In fact, being a Seder of that time. they were probably sitting/reclining, around the head table in a sort of U shape, much like you see in the movie, “Jesus of Nazareth”. BTW, I just learned that Pope Paul VI was consulted by the producer, during the creation of that movie. The Apostles were looking at Jesus face, not his back.

I’m not ignoring what then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, I’m just not totally convinced that facing East, is wrong, or that it makes the priest a sort of enterntainer. To me, such a statement seems to suggest that Cardinal Ratzinger saw Catholics as shallow minded.

Also, from what I remember, Pope John Paul II, said Mass facing the people, at public Masses.

What about Pope Benedict XVI at the recent WYD?

So, the priest facing the people is not wrong, and my guess is that it will not change, even under Pope Benedict XVI.

Jim

Jim, you remind me of Simcha Jacobovic, the Naked Archeologist from the History Channel. You are always trying to prove something and relying on the article from America magazine doesn’t hold much water. America is not a doctrinal publication, and, therefore, it is not a valid publication. Ministry and Liturgy is another questionable magazine, as the editors seem to rebel at anything Rome, let alone Pope Benedict (even as Joseph Ratzinger) writes. I used to be a subscriber to the magazine, but when they started going off the deep end, that’s when I decided to cancel out…

Did it ever occur to you that St. Peter’s Basilica is oriented towards the East? Furthermore, you keep repeatedly making the claim that I have said that facing the people was a prohibited practice. I have never said that, nor has anyone else on this thread for that matter, except you.

I had anticipated that you were going to come up with a papal rebuttal. At some point, Benedict will probably celebrate Mass ad orientsum, so don’t count him out yet.

Irregardless of where the early Church celebrated the sacred mysteries, the posture had always been ad orientsum. I do challenge you to pick up a copy of Ratzinger’s book. You need to immerse yourself in true doctrine. Just because I enjoy the Naked Archeologist, that doesn’t mean I have to buy his line of thinking. Unfortunately, I think you have.

 

[benedictgal]

Jim:

I just saw the reference made in America. You failed to mention that this was a Jesuit’s critique of the book. Although this Jesuit does give some points to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, he doesn’t seem convinced by his book. I think that if you are going to quote something, you should, in fairness, give us the complete context. If you are going to engage in document warfare, you need to be upfront about your sources and their contexts.

 

[zagjames]

The Pope does celerate ad orientem all the time. He says the tridintine mass in private, it is always ad orientem(at least facing the liturgical east of the church)

 

[Vincent]

Also, I think its safe to say, that Jesus, at the Last Supper, did not have have his back facing the Apostles. In fact, being a Seder of that time. they were probably sitting/reclining, around the head table in a sort of U shape, much like you see in the movie, “Jesus of Nazareth”.

All of the participants were sitting or reclining on the same side of the table, if Louis Bouyer is correct.

It’s curious to describe the celebrant’s position is terms of “back facing the people”. It would be odd to describe myself in the pews as having my back face my fellow worshipers in the pews behind me and that the people in the pews in front of me are having their backs face me.

 

[japhy]

The early Christians didn’t have churches but used homes and other places in hiding. So facing the East was not always possible.

Why? Wasn’t there “East” in those buildings too?

Does this mean that all Catholic church buildings should be constructed so that the priest faces compass East?

I would be willing to bet you that the overwhelming majority of Catholic (and Orthodox) church buildings are built facing the east.

Also, I think its safe to say, that Jesus, at the Last Supper, did not have have his back facing the Apostles. In fact, being a Seder of that time. they were probably sitting/reclining, around the head table in a sort of U shape, much like you see in the movie, “Jesus of Nazareth”.

The Mass is not a copy of the Last Supper, so stop trying to recast it that way.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

Did it ever occur to you that St. Peter’s Basilica is oriented towards the East?

Then all church’s constructed since 315AD should be facing East? Guess what, they’re not. What about churches in the far East, should they face East or West?

Furthermore, you keep repeatedly making the claim that I have said that facing the people was a prohibited practice.

I’m not saying you are making this claim. Sorry if it came across this way. But you and others, are arguing the point against the priest facing the people, so what else am I to conclude?

You need to immerse yourself in true doctrine.

A bit condescending here. I am immersed in true doctrine, despite your judgment.

Just because I enjoy the Naked Archeologist, that doesn’t mean I have to buy his line of thinking. Unfortunately, I think you have.

Again, you’re making a personal judgment against me and a now labeling me. I’ve never heard of the Naked Archaeologist, but regardless, you can not pigeon hole me into some label which you think defines who I am.

Let me be clear, I’ll go with whatever the magisterium of the Church mandates, because I am a traditional Catholic, who follows the magisterium. However, no such mandate has come, except for Cardinal Ratizinger stating his opinion on the matter.

Until then, I’m perfectly fine with the celebrant facing the people, in fact, I think something will be taken away if the Pope were to mandate ad orientem.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

All of the participants were sitting or reclining on the same side of the table, if Louis Bouyer is correct.

It’s curious to describe the celebrant’s position is terms of “back facing the people”. It would be odd to describe myself in the pews as having my back face my fellow worshipers in the pews behind me and that the people in the pews in front of me are having their backs face me.

They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table

This is presuming that this was indeed the situation at the last Supper. It could just as likely have been, three rectangular tables, two sitting perpendicular against each end of the main table. Even if we accept that is, the only person at a Seder who would be sitting at the convex portion of a C-shaped table, is the leader, The others would be along the edges of the C, and there for facing the leader.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

japhy

Why? Wasn’t there “East” in those buildings too?

Not always. Buildings back then weren’t built as houses of worship, but as homes.

I would be willing to bet you that the overwhelming majority of Catholic (and Orthodox) church buildings are built facing the east.

You’d probably lose the bet.

The Mass is not a copy of the Last Supper, so stop trying to recast it that way.

Really?

Jim

 

[Lazerlike42]

I am a person who happens to in many ways be a much bigger fan of the theology of the new Pauline order of Mass than of the Tridentine rite, but I am a huge supporter of ad orientem.

It’s really got nothing to do with being towards the people or away from the people, it’s got to do with God. Who, when praying, has never knelt down, as though before God, even if there was nothing in front of them? Who, when praying, has never looked up to they sky as if that is where God was? Even Jesus did these things in the Gospels. The fact is that God has no location (spare the Holy Eucharist, of course) because He is Spirit. When we kneel to nothing or look up to the sky, we aren’t really kneeling before or looking up to God, but we are showing Him that homage as best we can give our physical nature. While we are not really doing these things before God, at the same time we are, because the intention of our hearts, exercising itself through our symbolic actions, is accepted by and pleasing to God. Further, it enables us to more accurately and truthfully experience and express our submission to and adoration of God. This is all because it points to the fact that God is above us, beyond us, outside of us - He transcendes us.

The ad orientem posture does the same thing with the Mass, the ultimate act of worship and the ultimate prayer. The purpose of the Mass is to offer Christ to God in Sacrifice. Now the Sacrifice is accomplished whatever direction the priest is facing. Yet to face the altar, with his back to the people, is to do for the Mass what kneeling or looking up does for our personal prayer. It symbolizes, and in a mystical way actualizes, that our Sacrifice is being made to a Being that transcends us and is beyond us. While He is present in the congregation accidentally, as the philosophers would say, He is, in His essence beyond and outside and transcendent of the congregation. So the priest turns, facing with the people, so that all involved are looking in the same direction, towards God. God is, in His essence - that is, His real, true, most base level of existence - outside of the congregation. All of the people in the church have come to direct their attention outside of themselves, towards their transcendent God, and to offer Sacrifice to Him.

http://www.unavoce.org/tmass.jpg

This is the Sacrifice. All of the people are kneeling before God as the priest lifts Christ up in the air, offering Him to the God that is beyond us all. In the ad orientem posture, the Sacrificial nature of the Mass becomes so clear.

And yet it does not take away from the facing of the people, for the priest does face them, at the appropriate times. Throughout the entire Mass, there are two directions - towards the people, and towards God. When it is God Whom is being given to, He is faced, and so during the prayers and especially the Sacrifice, the priest faces God. When God is giving to the people, the priest faces them. So during times such as the homily and, especially the giving of Communion, the priest faces the people. And so ad orientem, rather than excluding certain parts of worship - such as the rightful emphasis on the community of the people - in fact serves to include and emphasize all the appropriate parts of worship. It directs the people towards God when that is proper, when the action is one that ought to be directed towards God, and it directs the people to the community, and to recognizing God’s giving to them, when the action occuring is one that ought to be towards them.

 

[benedictgal]

japhy

Not always. Buildings back then weren’t built as houses of worship, but as homes.

You’d probably lose the bet.

Really?

Jim:

If you really knew Catholic doctrine as you claim you do, you would realize that the Mass is a re-presentation of the moment of Calvary. Jesus, having already anticipated His Sacrifice on Calvary, took the elements of bread and wine at the Last Supper to transform them into His Body and Blood. While we do not “repeat” the bloody sacrifice, we are just as present at Calvary during the Mass as were the Blessed Mother, Sts. John and Mary Magdalene and the other women.

As I have said earlier, not once in any of your posts do you recognize that the Mass is the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Great theologians such as St. Thomas Aquainas have composed hymns to that fact.

Jim

 

[japhy]

Not always. Buildings back then weren’t built as houses of worship, but as homes.

You failed to see my point. There is always the East. You can always face the East! (Except at the Poles, I guess.)

You’d probably lose the bet.

I really had meant to say “were”, not “are”. I’m quite confident orienting churches eastward had greater significance in previous centuries than it seems to today.

Really?

How come the priest doesn’t actually break the bread when he says Jesus did it? How come the priest doesn’t distribute the Host and Chalice during the prayer, when Jesus did? How come the priest only washes feet on Holy Thursday (the Memorial of the Lord’s Supper!)?

The Mass is not a re-creation of the Last Supper. The Last Supper was an anticipatory celebration of Calvary; Jesus made Calvary present to the Apostles then, just as he makes it present to us now, in the Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

Jim:

I messed up on the quotes buttons (we need some sort of tutorial on this

I do not want you to think that I’ve inserted my opinion directly into your quote.

You claim that you are a traditional Catholic; however, you have not mentioned any Traditional doctrine in your posts that would back up your statements. As far as ad orientsum is concerned, the Church had been celebrating this posture for nearly two millenia before the Missal of Paul VI took effect. Even when the change happened, it was no where implied that the priest had to adopt the posture of facing the people. In fact, in one of his lecutres on the subject, then-Cardinal Ratzinger noted that this “innovation” was not an organic development.

The reason why I compared you to Symka Jacobovich is that he wants to have archeological “proof” about Biblical events. In the same manner, you cite “historical” sources regarding the Mass that have already been noted as erroneous by Cardinal Ratzinger.

You note that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was “expressing” his opinion on the Mass. Well, now, his “opinions” are starting to shape the direction the Church is taking regarding the liturgy. Many of the statements he made as a cardinal are now turning into guidelines that he is trying to instill as Pope. A careful reading and re-reading of Sacramentum Caritatis proves my point.

 

[TMC]

The emotion generated by this issue never ceases to amaze me.

Myself, I have a slight preference for the priest to face the people. But I wouldn’t care if he faces ad orientum. I really don’t care how he stands, or what kind of cup he uses, or what clothes he wears, or which translation of which prayer he uses, or what the altar servers wear. I don’t care how big the crucifix is, or if its ‘too modern’. I don’t care if there are flowers up there or not. I don’t care where the priest stand for the homily, or if he calls it a ‘sermon’. I don’t care if there are candles, or what they are made of, or when they were lit, or what they were lit with. I don’t care when the announcements are done, or if they are done, or who they are done by. I don’t care if people hold hands or stand “orans.” I don’t care if an EMHC distributes communion, or if people stand, kneel, genuflect, bow, receive in hand, receive on the tongue.

I am not saying the liturgy is not important, but the liturgy is NOT CATHOLICISM. It wouldn’t even make the top ten most important things in Catholicism and certainly wouldn’t be even on my list of things that are important in the Church today. I figure the priest has this part of things covered, and if I went to Mass this Sunday and he said from now on he is going to stand sideways, wouldn’t bother me a bit. I have enough to do trying to keep the important things straight without worrying about such things.

So why am I posting this if I don’t care? I don’t know, feeling a little ranty today I guess.

 

[benedictgal]

The emotion generated by this issue never ceases to amaze me.

Myself, I have a slight preference for the priest to face the people. But I wouldn’t care if he faces ad orientum. I really don’t care how he stands, or what kind of cup he uses, or what clothes he wears, or which translation of which prayer he uses, or what the altar servers wear. I don’t care how big the crucifix is, or if its ‘too modern’. I don’t care if there are flowers up there or not. I don’t care where the priest stand for the homily, or if he calls it a ‘sermon’. I don’t care if there are candles, or what they are made of, or when they were lit, or what they were lit with. I don’t care when the announcements are done, or if they are done, or who they are done by. I don’t care if people hold hands or stand “orans.” I don’t care if an EMHC distributes communion, or if people stand, kneel, genuflect, bow, receive in hand, receive on the tongue.

I am not saying the liturgy is not important, but the liturgy is NOT CATHOLICISM. It wouldn’t even make the top ten most important things in Catholicism and certainly wouldn’t be even on my list of things that are important in the Church today. I figure the priest has this part of things covered, and if I went to Mass this Sunday and he said from now on he is going to stand sideways, wouldn’t bother me a bit. I have enough to do trying to keep the important things straight without worrying about such things.

So why am I posting this if I don’t care? I don’t know, feeling a little ranty today I guess.

TMC,

The Mass is the source and summit of our Catholic Faith. For you to say that the Liturgy is not “Catholicism” is a gross misunderstanding of the importance of the Mass. Without the Mass, everything else in our faith is meaningless.

It does matter to the Church how the Mass is celebrated. That is why she presents us with rubrics that we must follow. Unfortunately the dictatorship of relativism that then-Cardinal Ratzinger warned about in his Conclave Mass homily has seeped into our Church and into the Liturgy. To trivialize the Mass and make it unimportant is to trivialize the very sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

To paraphrase Rhett Butler (when accosted by his insistence that the South was going to be defeated), “This (in my case, the Mass), means a great deal to a great many people.”

 

[TMC]

TMC,

The Mass is the source and summit of our Catholic Faith. For you to say that the Liturgy is not “Catholicism” is a gross misunderstanding of the importance of the Mass. Without the Mass, everything else in our faith is meaningless.

It does matter to the Church how the Mass is celebrated. That is why she presents us with rubrics that we must follow. Unfortunately the dictatorship of relativism that then-Cardinal Ratzinger warned about in his Conclave Mass homily has seeped into our Church and into the Liturgy. To trivialize the Mass and make it unimportant is to trivialize the very sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

To paraphrase Rhett Butler (when accosted by his insistence that the South was going to be defeated), “This (in my case, the Mass), means a great deal to a great many people.”

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am not saying that the liturgy is not Catholic, or that the **Mass **is unimportant. I am saying that the **form of the liturgy **is unimportant. I know the Church cares about the form, and I let the Church deal with that. The form of the liturgy just does not matter to me. I have personal preferences in music, and so forth. But I know they are preferences and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Mass, its validity, or its efficacy.

More importantly, I know that being Catholic is not about attending Mass. It is about living my life as a faithful Christian and trying everyday to live out the two new commandments Christ left us with.

I know it matters to some people. I guess I don’t really understand why they feel so strongly. It doesn’t matter to me. Its not my thing. If after I die some saint or angel or whatever told me that every single Mass I ever participated in was done ‘wrong’ it would not concern me.

So why do people care so deeply? Mostly people mention that they think their preferred form is more reverant or more spiritual or both. I’m sure the people on the other side of whatever issue is being argued feel the same way about their preferences.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

So why do people care so deeply? Mostly people mention that they think their preferred form is more reverant or more spiritual or both. I’m sure the people on the other side of whatever issue is being argued feel the same way about their preferences.

I hope it’s not because mass attendance is the main expression of their faith.