Someone recently posted in this forum an excellent explanation on Mass celebrated ad orientem and now I can't find it

[kimmielittle]

Listening and learning

Thank you ALL

 

[malphono]

As I recall, the poster explained that the prayers of the Mass are offered to God and not to those assisting at Mass. Therefore having the priest celebrate the Mass silently was not really an issue.

Can you good folks help me find this post because I think it will help me explain the Mass to others.

Thanks for your help

Is [post=7929705]this[/post] perhaps the post you were thinking about?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

If you study the Sacramentary, you’ll find that even in the Novus Ordo, it’s actually noted in the Rubrics that the priest faces away from the people (East and facing the altar). I believe it’s somewhere around the Agnus Dei the rubrics say that the priest “turns to face the people”. If facing the people were supposed to be the norm, there would be absolutely no reason for that particular rubric to be there.

 

[rben20]

I thought facing East might have something to do with
awaiting the Second Coming of Christ?

Facing east can mean literally facing the cardinal direction but it has much more to do with the “Liturgical East” as someone already said. Facing East means focusing on the altar and crucifix with the priest. If I am not mistaken, I believe the raising of the Eucharist and chalice is for us to see since the priest would be covering both (had we been facing East) according to tradition. Church graveyards were also placed facing East for the Second coming…for the bodies to be the first to see our Lord rise as the sun rises first from the East.

 

[the_phoenix]

Facing east can mean literally facing the cardinal direction but it has much more to do with the “Liturgical East” as someone already said. Facing East means focusing on the altar and crucifix with the priest. If I am not mistaken, I believe the raising of the Eucharist and chalice is for us to see since the priest would be covering both (had we been facing East) according to tradition. Church graveyards were also placed facing East for the Second coming…for the bodies to be the first to see our Lord rise as the sun rises first from the East.

I appreciate learning more about ad orientem in this thread … thanks!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Did the apostles celebrate mass ad orientam? I don’t have an axe to grind–I’m ignorant and just want to learn when ad orientam first got started.

 

[ProVobis]

Did the apostles celebrate mass ad orientam? I don’t have an axe to grind–I’m ignorant and just want to learn when ad orientam first got started.

I’ve heard there is evidence to the Apostles celebrating ad orientem.

 

[rben20]

Did the apostles celebrate mass ad orientam? I don’t have an axe to grind–I’m ignorant and just want to learn when ad orientam first got started.

Considering the tradition is as old as the apostles, I think it would be safe to say yes. The Orthodox still face East and have not abandoned the practice. In a EF Mass, facing East is done. There are some OF that face East but they are few.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Would it be OK or wrong to build a church so that when the priest faced east he would be facing the congregation?

 

[ProVobis]

Would it be OK or wrong to build a church so that when the priest faced east he would be facing the congregation?

What would be the point? The congregation would then be facing West.

 

[MarkThompson]

If you study the Sacramentary, you’ll find that even in the Novus Ordo, it’s actually noted in the Rubrics that the priest faces away from the people (East and facing the altar). I believe it’s somewhere around the Agnus Dei the rubrics say that the priest “turns to face the people”. If facing the people were supposed to be the norm, there would be absolutely no reason for that particular rubric to be there.

This is not true. The rubrics never say that the priest is to face away from the people, nor do they say that he must turn. They merely specify that there are certain portions of the Mass which are to be said facing the people, leaving it – quite rightly – undeteremined how the other portions of the Mass are said. I’m not sure who started promoting this vaguely gnostic idea amounting to the claim that there are “hidden rubrics” that secretly mean the OF is “really” supposed to be said ad orientem, but it is not true. The rubrics simply, and correctly, assume that the Mass might be said ad orientem, and tell the priest which parts cannot be so performed.

 

[Monica4316]

I read an article about VII that talked about how when the council talked about participation of the laity, it meant spiritual participation, not visible like we have today. Maybe the council meant to give the laity more prayers and responses to say. But it was always the case that the priest faces God, and leads the people in the prayers, as they are offered to God. Ad orientem makes sense with this in mind. VII didn’t say that the priest has to face the people, - the priests were given that option, but that is only one option. It is unclear why it became so widespread.

 

[laszlo]

VII didn’t say that the priest has to face the people, - the priests were given that option, but that is only one option. It is unclear why it became so widespread.

Yes. The option was given in 1964 by the Inter Oecumenici by pope Paul VI, so by the holder of the living tradition, as an option.

It is still option, I attend new Masses, facing the altar (and South: we expect Jesus, as the Acts of Apostles and the Creed said: from above not from East).

The fact that the majority of the priest and bishops chose the facing the people position using the people facing position means that there is nothing wrong with that, ot has its own symbolic too, the unity of the clergy and laity, the fact that the Holy Mass is joyful gathering and meal too, and anyway the fact that we expec Jesus from above.

 

[archangel04]

I am sorry, but this 'ad orientem is titillating my brain.

Ad orientem has nothing to do with the defined new form, nor with the traditional form. I attend new for masses, where the priest turn toward the tabernacle, his back toward the people. He faces toward South. The Church was built in 1925, and excep for a short time, the masses, usus antiquior or new form were celebrated facing South; never East. The parish church into which I born also faced South, so did the one where I had first communion. Until recently I never heard or thought that should built on that way that priest facing the altar should face toward East.

Ironically my territorial church the priest is facing toward East, toward the people and toward the tabernacle. Everybody else turn their back toward the tabernacle.

Some people like better the old form (according to the numbers less than 20 out of 100, the others are attached better to the reverent new form, some (suppose again a very loud 20%) likes the theatrical scenes.

Where do you get these numbers?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

This is not true. The rubrics never say that the priest is to face away from the people, nor do they say that he must turn. They merely specify that there are certain portions of the Mass which are to be said facing the people, leaving it – quite rightly – undeteremined how the other portions of the Mass are said. I’m not sure who started promoting this vaguely gnostic idea amounting to the claim that there are “hidden rubrics” that secretly mean the OF is “really” supposed to be said ad orientem, but it is not true. The rubrics simply, and correctly, assume that the Mass might be said ad orientem, and tell the priest which parts cannot be so performed.

Go look at the Sacramentary before you say it’s not true. The Sacramentary I looked at said that. Now, go look before calling another person a liar.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I read an article about VII that talked about how when the council talked about participation of the laity, it meant spiritual participation, not visible like we have today. Maybe the council meant to give the laity more prayers and responses to say. But it was always the case that the priest faces God, and leads the people in the prayers, as they are offered to God. Ad orientem makes sense with this in mind. VII didn’t say that the priest has to face the people, - the priests were given that option, but that is only one option. It is unclear why it became so widespread.

The way our faith is practiced, the physical always guides the spiritual. How can people spiritually increase their participation if they are not involved in the physical sense (or in a sense perceived in this world, like singing, etc.)? Like the Sacraments, there is a physical representation of a spiritual reality.

I think there is good value to people seeing whats going on. In the Byzantine Rite we do celebrate ad orientem and we never see what the priest does most of the time. But when I started serving, I saw a lot of what he does and it made me appreciate the Liturgy more.

 

[MarkThompson]

Go look at the Sacramentary before you say it’s not true. The Sacramentary I looked at said that. Now, go look before calling another person a liar.

Okay, feel free to point out where. I would love to see it.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Okay, feel free to point out where. I would love to see it.

Provide me one in English with the rubrics in red and I would. It’s in the one my parish is using and was pointed out to me by an anti-Traditionalist person. I no longer have access to that as I don’t work at the parish anymore, but I’m sure you can find yourself a copy somewhere if you really want to. Something tells me you’re probably not interested in learning, however.

 

[MarkThompson]

Provide me one in English with the rubrics in red and I would. It’s in the one my parish is using and was pointed out to me by an anti-Traditionalist person. I no longer have access to that as I don’t work at the parish anymore, but I’m sure you can find yourself a copy somewhere if you really want to.

I’m not sure what your problem is with the normative, authoritative Latin text of the Missale, whose words are not subject to changes in meaning, misunderstandings by speakers of various dialects, and so on. Anyway, the 1973 English “translation” (work of genius such as it is ) is not online, but the upcoming translation and the rejected 1998 are. If you’re unwilling to work from the Latin, this still ought to let you find it, unless this secret is so well-guarded that it’s in the 1973 only.

Something tells me you’re probably not interested in learning, however.

Try me.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I’m not sure what your problem is with the normative, authoritative Latin text of the Missale, whose words are not subject to changes in meaning, misunderstandings by speakers of various dialects, and so on. Anyway, the 1973 English “translation” (work of genius such as it is ) is not online, but the upcoming translation and the rejected 1998 are. If you’re unwilling to work from the Latin, this still ought to let you find it, unless this secret is so well-guarded that it’s in the 1973 only.

Try me.

I have no problems with the Latin version except it’s not like I can quick scan to the right spot like I could in the English version ('73) and my Latin isn’t exactly the most scholarly. I assure you it IS in the Missal which my parish used. There’s no doubt about that. Whether or not there could be a mistranslation — well, I’ll give you that as you’re right about all that stuff being pretty bad. It is possible there’s yet another error.

I’d certainly like to think not in this case.