Re-turning to the Lord. A Call for Ad Orientem Worship

[pnewton]

Christ is not present in the altar per se.

I said on the altar. I assume all here are bright enough to know that it is on the altar that Holy Mass is said and the Eucharist rests.

If he is not imply there is sin one way or another, or that there is an underlying gnosticism, then the whole article is gibberish.

 

[commenter]

Indeed, and the consecration with the priest facing the people was not a Vatican II “innovation”. It has been the way things were done for a long time in certain religious communities where the community aspect was emphasized (think Benedictines). Moreover, I have a 1935 Ceremonial where it clearly indicates the protocol to follow for a versus populum Mass, in cases where the altar is between he choir and the nave, and the priest faces the nave. In that case the mass is versus populum for the people, but away from the people for the choir (which in many communities and cathedral chapters can be quite large).

Similar rubrics are given for the other way around, that is versus populum for the choir, and away from the people for those in the nave. Note also: no tabernacle on the altar.

Moreover experimentation with versus populum on a larger scale was carried out first in the 1940s at Sant’ Anselmo monastery in Rome. This is long before Vatican II was even imagined, and tends to indicate that the Liturgical Movement would have led the Church in that direction regardless of whether the Council were held or not.

There are so many myths about Ad Orientem… I thought I’d pop out of “retirement” as it were to clear up some points when I saw this thread.

It sounds like you are saying different styles are possible, and that there have been different stages, sometimes most Masses doing it one way with some doing it another way.

Agreed.

People always tend to think what is common right now (like saying Mass facing the people) is the Last Possible Stage of development, and should be the Only Way things should be done. I think most ad orientem supporters are saying diversity of styles in non-essentials should be encouraged. Will the next stage for 99% of OF Masses be ad orientem? Maybe, probably not. The ferocity of the opposition concerns me.

Should it be allowed here and there, if people ask? Sure.

The alarmists went berserk when the diocese finally allowed the one EF years ago. There were predictions of Spanish Inquisition for anyone who liked the OF, dire warnings that all throughout the diocese would be forced to wear veils all the time, no more extraordinary ministers or lectors, and mandatory or forbidden anything and everything, Woe, Woe, and ****Woe ****again.

Nightmare didn’t happen. Those who like the EF still have it available. That’s all. Most people are not affected.

If a few more people would like ad orientem to be more available, here and there, why not let them?

 

[OraLabora]

If a few more people would like ad orientem to be more available, here and there, why not let them?

It all boils down to the configuration of the church in question. I’ve been to OF Masses that simply would not work ad orientem due to the configuration and placement of the altar (one of which is my abbey), and to others where ad oritentem was the only possibility because of the configuration (Monte Cassino in Italy is one example).

If we simply made that the criterion, we’d de-politicize this whole divisive debate.

 

[pnewton]

The ferocity of the opposition concerns me.

This is not the first I have heard it said that opposition to ad orientem is fierce or something like that, but I have not seen it. If anything, the opposite seems true. For example, I have never seen anyone calling ad orientem to return to the Lord and face the people.

 

[JimG]

It’s been a long time since I’ve attended an ad orientem Mass, either EF or OF. But there does seem to be a resurgence of interest in it. Here is an article in which a Deacon describes his first experience of it.

Fr. Z comments on it here.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Ad Orientem is the way that Catholic worship makes sense.

 

[Tomyris]

As an outsider looking in, I am rather puzzled by all this.

 

[commenter]

As an outsider looking in, I am rather puzzled by all this.

As a Christian you are not an “outsider” really, but I agree this area carries more weight with Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, perhaps Lutherans, and perhaps some others, than with most Protestants.

Think of the Mass, not as a “worship service”, but as a ritual where something is enacted. The closest analogy I can think of is a Protestant wedding; Bill and Jane were not married when they walked in the church, but when it is finished, they were. Something both supernatural and natural was enacted. On Earth and in Heaven, they are husband and wife. It is very different from a date, for instance, or a discussion about relationships.

The Mass is so rooted in Tradition that even that which is not essential to the Consecration is important. Those who prefer ad orientem, with few exceptions, accept the validity of Masses the other way, and those who prefer the priest facing the people accept the validity of Ad orientem Masses.

Personally ad orientem makes more sense to me as time goes on. In the 1960s Catholics were fully aware of the supernatural character of the Mass - a re presentation (not representation) of the sacrifice of Calvary - but were hazy on the character of a meal, a gathering of the faithful, a unity. The Church has throughout history made adjustments against the prevailing overemphasis. So “facing the people”.

But today, many Catholics lack an understanding of the Real Presence, the character of the priest himself at Mass, or the concept of “facing East”, looking in the “direction” of God throughout our lives. Maybe the time has come to make adjustments, to make clearer the traditional and Vatican II reaffirmed reality of the Mass as Sacrifice, as participation in the timeless liturgy of Heaven; so everybody including the priest face “Heaven”!

In the Middle Ages there was a legend that time stood still for you while you were attending Mass, so some people attended lots of Masses for that reason! Ok, Ok, we can smile at them, but there a grain of truth in that error, a grain we may have forgotten. We should all be aware of e ternity, out of time, the reality that what is enacted at every Mass has eternal consequences, above and beyond what we see and hear in this church. Mass is our joining in the eternal liturgy, or to put it another way, it is Heaven joining in “ours”. Ad orientem seems to suggest that reality a little clearer.

 

[Tomyris]

As a Christian you are not an “outsider” really, but I agree this area carries more weight with Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, perhaps Lutherans, and perhaps some others, than with most Protestants.

Think of the Mass, not as a “worship service”, but as a ritual where something is enacted. The closest analogy I can think of is a Protestant wedding; Bill and Jane were not married when they walked in the church, but when it is finished, they were. Something both supernatural and natural was enacted. On Earth and in Heaven, they are husband and wife. It is very different from a date, for instance, or a discussion about relationships.

The Mass is so rooted in Tradition that even that which is not essential to the Consecration is important. Those who prefer ad orientem, with few exceptions, accept the validity of Masses the other way, and those who prefer the priest facing the people accept the validity of Ad orientem Masses.

Personally ad orientem makes more sense to me as time goes on. In the 1960s Catholics were fully aware of the supernatural character of the Mass - a re presentation (not representation) of the sacrifice of Calvary - but were hazy on the character of a meal, a gathering of the faithful, a unity. The Church has throughout history made adjustments against the prevailing overemphasis. So “facing the people”.

But today, many Catholics lack an understanding of the Real Presence, the character of the priest himself at Mass, or the concept of “facing East”, looking in the “direction” of God throughout our lives. Maybe the time has come to make adjustments, to make clearer the traditional and Vatican II reaffirmed reality of the Mass as Sacrifice, as participation in the timeless liturgy of Heaven; so everybody including the priest face “Heaven”!

In the Middle Ages there was a legend that time stood still for you while you were attending Mass, so some people attended lots of Masses for that reason! Ok, Ok, we can smile at them, but there a grain of truth in that error, a grain we may have forgotten. We should all be aware of e ternity, out of time, the reality that what is enacted at every Mass has eternal consequences, above and beyond what we see and hear in this church. Mass is our joining in the eternal liturgy, or to put it another way, it is Heaven joining in “ours”. Ad orientem seems to suggest that reality a little clearer.

I mean, as not-ordained* I have no authority to go up to the priest and tell him mid-Mass “excuse me, you are facing the wrong way”, which it seems some might heartily endorse. I think these discussions are fine in terms of getting an understanding of what is happening, but in terms of feeling that the Mass is somewhat less than it should be because the priest is facing the wrong way, well, I think that feeling is someone out of line. If someone were to take that article or this thread and go and beat their pastor about the head with it, they would be out of line. To me that is a bigger issue than my understanding of what happens at Mass. There is a danger here of taking heated sides: “My Way or the Highway!” with the focus on the direction the priest is facing. The focus is really supposed to be in Jesus Christ. All other things fade away as they are tiny in comparison.

People can take this and make it a cause of division. One of the saddest things in Church history is that we have managed to make what Christ gave us for unity to be a cause of great division among us. I think we have to be exceedingly careful when we are discussing our passion for a certain position that we do not alienate others.

• even ordained, you would have no authority unless you are his bishop or higher in the direct hierarchy. A visiting archbishop from another country should not insist he turn around.

 

[Casilda]

As an outsider looking in, I am rather puzzled by all this.

Altars used to be placed on the eastern side of the sanctuary. The priest would then face the altar/face east when lifting the Eucharist. Most Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox parishes are configured this way. Our parish’s altar is on the eastern side. It is said because we are waiting in joyful expectation for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. A tradition lost.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...hNsVn5QT8ryOBvOUM8cfmfcH-_7IqFZUxNvPcMCgNnmrg

 

[Magdalena59]

Think of the Mass, not as a “worship service”, but as a ritual where something is enacted. The closest analogy I can think of is a Protestant wedding; Bill and Jane were not married when they walked in the church, but when it is finished, they were. Something both supernatural and natural was enacted. On Earth and in Heaven, they are husband and wife. It is very different from a date, for instance, or a discussion about relationships.

The Mass is so rooted in Tradition that even that which is not essential to the Consecration is important. Those who prefer ad orientem, with few exceptions, accept the validity of Masses the other way, and those who prefer the priest facing the people accept the validity of Ad orientem Masses.

Personally ad orientem makes more sense to me as time goes on. In the 1960s Catholics were fully aware of the supernatural character of the Mass - a re presentation (not representation) of the sacrifice of Calvary - but were hazy on the character of a meal, a gathering of the faithful, a unity. The Church has throughout history made adjustments against the prevailing overemphasis. So “facing the people”.

But today, many Catholics lack an understanding of the Real Presence, the character of the priest himself at Mass, or the concept of “facing East”, looking in the “direction” of God throughout our lives. Maybe the time has come to make adjustments, to make clearer the traditional and Vatican II reaffirmed reality of the Mass as Sacrifice, as participation in the timeless liturgy of Heaven; so everybody including the priest face “Heaven”!

In the Middle Ages there was a legend that time stood still for you while you were attending Mass, so some people attended lots of Masses for that reason! Ok, Ok, we can smile at them, but there a grain of truth in that error, a grain we may have forgotten. We should all be aware of e ternity, out of time, the reality that what is enacted at every Mass has eternal consequences, above and beyond what we see and hear in this church. Mass is our joining in the eternal liturgy, or to put it another way, it is Heaven joining in “ours”. Ad orientem seems to suggest that reality a little clearer.

 

[commenter]

I mean, as not-ordained* I have no authority to go up to the priest and tell him mid-Mass “excuse me, you are facing the wrong way”, which it seems some might heartily endorse.
.

We all would agree that Love is more important than music at church services. A Mass that has no music is valid. No one would go up to the priest or congregation and say their Mass is wrong because it lacks music.

But suppose you have been to other churches where they did have music, absent from your own parish, that you felt supported a sense of worship. It would not make you an extremist to tactfully bring up the fact that “You know, there is an organ in our church that has not been used in decades. I have visited St. John’s church and the hymns played seem to support the congregation’s sense of worship. Maybe we could consider, one Mass each weekend, we find someone who can play the organ.”

Suggesting Ad Orientem, on a limited basis, is something like that. Immediately someone will characterize any request for Ad Orientem as rigid vigilantes storming the rectory with torches and pickaxes. Like church music, Ad Orientem is not equal in importance to the crucial elements of the Mass. It just supports one aspect of it.

 

[Magdalena59]

I mean, as not-ordained* I have no authority to go up to the priest and tell him mid-Mass “excuse me, you are facing the wrong way”, which it seems some might heartily endorse. I think these discussions are fine in terms of getting an understanding of what is happening, but in terms of feeling that the Mass is somewhat less than it should be because the priest is facing the wrong way, well, I think that feeling is someone out of line. If someone were to take that article or this thread and go and beat their pastor about the head with it, they would be out of line. To me that is a bigger issue than my understanding of what happens at Mass. There is a danger here of taking heated sides: “My Way or the Highway!” with the focus on the direction the priest is facing. The focus is really supposed to be in Jesus Christ. All other things fade away as they are tiny in comparison.

People can take this and make it a cause of division. One of the saddest things in Church history is that we have managed to make what Christ gave us for unity to be a cause of great division among us. I think we have to be exceedingly careful when we are discussing our passion for a certain position that we do not alienate others.

• even ordained, you would have no authority unless you are his bishop or higher in the direct hierarchy. A visiting archbishop from another country should not insist he turn around.

There has been a lot of confusion over the years as to why the priest was facing ad orientum. Many people thought he was being rude because he had his back to the people, not understanding that one of his roles was to lead people all in the same direction.

I haven’t heard of anyone going up to a priest at Mass and correcting him regarding anything, let alone the position he is facing. I don’t believe anyone here who prefers or would like to see a return to ad orientum is suggesting anyone do that but like you said it is good to discuss and learn the reasons priests used to face that way and why many are choosing to return to it today. In that way we can be supportive of their decisions.

Another thing you are right about the Mass is about Jesus Christ, which is another reason ad orientum is something priests are choosing to do today because some, not all, find it hard to keep that focus on Jesus and at times become the center of attention themselves.

God bless.