Should Mass be offered Ad Orientem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh boy, this could get pretty ugly. I like Maximilian’s response best.
Maximilian75 said:
Versus Populum (VP) and Ad Orientem (AO) both have equal liturgical value and heritage, IMO. Both should be used and embraced, and neither stuffed into the closet for being too 'protestant or ‘archaic’.
Click to expand...
I’ll add that I prefer Ad Orientem but I have no problem with Versus Populum.
 
The body and blood of Jesus are in front of the priest, but His spirit dwells in everyone in the congregation.

So the priest has the body, blood and spirit of Jesus in front of him when he faces the people.

Jim
 
Well, the mass is primarily for God, and not us. We certainly benefit from it, but it’s primarily for God. When the priest faces the people, he risks blurring that distinction.
 
Symbolic East, when not possible to face literal East.

Also, the Roman buildings Constantine donated to the Church, did not have a literal East direction in their construction, so the Mass was celebrated symbolically east, but this had to do with the fact that the altar was a shelf attached to the far wall at the head of the building.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Wrong. The bread and wine become Jesus at the consecration.
 
Yes, but usually they make an effort to make the altar face literal east.
 
The priest becomes Christ en persona at the Consecration.

The prayers at Mass are to the Father by the son, i.e the priest

Jim
 
Last edited:
He becomes Christ en persona. Christ faced the Apostles and the Apostles faced the people when they celebrated Mass.

It’s one of the theological reasons why women can not become priest. Because Christ was a male and the priest being Christ at Mass, must also be a male.

Jim
 
Anyway, like Fr David said, the Church allows the priest to face the people and Ad Orientem.

To argue about which is better only ends up helping to maintain division among the faithful.

Unsubscribing

Jim
 
Last edited:
He ACTS in persona christi.

Why is it that for almost 2000 years the church offered mass facing east? Obviously there is something theologically significant about that.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it’s more than a matter of preference but also a matter of configuration, that is, some configurations make one or the other option possible/impossible/necessary.

I can think of at least two churches I’ve been at where in one, ad orientem was impossible, and another, where ad orientem was necessary.

This is why the Church allows and embraces both options. And as my 1935 French Ceremonial clearly shows, this was also the case well before Vatican II where in some configurations ad orientem was either for the faithful, or for the canons/religious in choir. Necessarily then, for one of those two parts of the church the Mass was versus populum depending on configuration, when the altar was between the choir and the nave.

Just because most parishes pre-council were ad orientem does not mean that everywhere was always ad orientem. People forget the large number of cathedrals with chapters of canons and monasteries in the world, especially in Europe, plus churches with different geographical layouts.
AndrewAxland said:
It still does, unless you don’t believe that God is omnipresent.
Click to expand...
Moreover, when the priest confects the Eucharist on the altar, he is facing Christ whichever way he is oriented relative to the faithful.
 
Last edited:
semper_catholicus said:
Obviously there is something theologically significant about that.
Click to expand...
If there were something essentially significant about it, then “liturgical east” would always coincide with true geographical east. But it doesn’t, so there isn’t. At least in the eyes of the Council of Trent.
 
So then, why is it that, before Vatican II, the faithful who heard mass at St. Peter’s Basilica would actually turn around and face literal east when it came time for the consecration?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top