SPLIT: Ad orientum in the OF Mass

[Sirach2]

Benedictgal:

the CDWDS stated that Ad Orientum was not to be excluded as a valid option.

I have no difficulty understanding or believing that A.O. is a valid option. However, it is rarely used - in fact, I have never seen this in any parish where I have attended mass in the 40 years V.P. has been in existence.

Are you saying a priest is at liberty to use this option in opposition to the directions of his bishop?

Are you further saying that this option is more acceptable simply because Card. Ratzinger wrote a theological opinion about his preference? It seems to be of great importance for you to point this out time and time again. But do you really believe anyone is listening who has the authority to overrule a priest’s option and/or mandate by his bishop to celebrate V.P.?

True, we understand the theology, for it has been presented abundantly. But does that mean everyone who understands it - agrees? I truly love the VP option and have my own “theological” reasons that are at odds with those you present. But since, as you mentioned, it is your right to hold this opinion, why do you attempt to change the rest of us … who also have a right to our own opinions?

 

[Brendan]

Agree.
However, the matter of posture taken by OF celebrants, while the priest “may” be permitted to choose either one according to Benedictgal’s source, it is ultimately up to the Bishop to regulate this in his diocese. I’m remembering the problem Mother Angelica encountered when she directed her priests to use ad orientem, and the bishop strictly forbade it because the mass is televised.

As Benedictgal noted, Bishop Foley was not permitted to requlate if the priest celebrated the Mass A.O. but rather if a particular public Mass was allowed to be televised.

So the priests within his diocese could excercise their right to say Mass A.O. (he could not regulate that, as it is a Universal Norm), but the bishop could refuse permission to have the Mass televised.

Are you saying a priest is at liberty to use this option in opposition to the directions of his bishop?

That is precisely what the Vatican said when the priests appealed Bishop Foley’s directive. Bishop Foley was told by the Vatican that he could NOT forbid the celebration of Mass A.O., but could only forbid the broadcast of such a Mass.

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks for further clarification, Brendan. I hope you and Benedictgal realize I understand what you are saying, but I haven’t heard from either of you whether or not a bishop in any other diocese besides Mother Angelica’s has specifically directed their priests to use V.P., given that none apparently use it. And this, despite the opinion and preference of Card. Ratzinger.

Nor have I heard why the A.O. is being so heavily promoted, when both options are lawful. Either the priests disagree with the Cardinal’s opinion and prefer V.P., or else the bishop has removed the option. In either case, it seems immaterial to cite his views when they are not likely to be adopted. It causes division and dissension among those who have no authority to make a single change, and who are apt to disagree.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks for further clarification, Brendan. I hope you and Benedictgal realize I understand what you are saying, but I haven’t heard from either of you whether or not a bishop in any other diocese besides Mother Angelica’s has specifically directed their priests to use V.P., given that none apparently use it. And this, despite the opinion and preference of Card. Ratzinger.

Nor have I heard why the A.O. is being so heavily promoted, when both options are lawful. Either the priests disagree with the Cardinal’s opinion and prefer V.P., or else the bishop has removed the option. In either case, it seems immaterial to cite his views when they are not likely to be adopted. It causes division and dissension among those who have no authority to make a single change, and who are apt to disagree.

It’s not so much that Ad Orientem is being “heavily promoted”, it’s more along the lines of the fact that the posture is misunderstood, mischaracterized and perceived incorrectly. The reforms in the wake of the Second Vatican Council never abolished the posture. That is the point that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger makes in his book and in his writings. Even the CDWDS makes that clear. In fact, if you take a closer look at the GIRM and the actual rubrics of the Roman Missal, there are indications that, at least insofar as the Liturgy of the Eucharist is concerned, this posture should be preserved. For example, during the Consecration, the rubrics state the priest “shows” the Sacred Host and the chalice to the faithful. If he is verses populum, there is really no need to do that emphatically because the faithful are already seeing what is happening. On the other hand, if he is Ad Orientem, then, obviously, he has to lift high both Sacred Species.

There are other tell-tale signs in the rubrics that also assume that Ad Orientem is being used. For example, when the rubrics state “he faces the people”, this assumes that Ad Orientem is being used.

The CDWDS stated that the bishop does not have the right to remove this legitimate option. The only time that he can regulate this particular form is when the Mass is being telecast from his diocese. There have not been any other documented issues regarding Ad Orientem other than what happened on EWTN.

Regarding the citing of the former cardinal’s views, it is actually material in citing them because they are supported by the GIRM, the actual Roman Missal and the statement (made with a protocol number) of the CDWDS. In fact, in another issue, when the CDWDS issued a statement, it actually used Cardinal Ratzinger’s own writings as a reference to further clarify the Congregation’s position.

 

[rben20]

This has probably been covered before but did Vatican II call for the priest to face the people? Or was this an innovation that was implemented? I am for Ad orientum in the Mass!

 

[Brendan]

I know quite a few priests who DO see the theological benefit of saying Mass A.O., but choose not to because of the number of complaints that they expect to recieve from the parishioners. So they simply choose V.P. since it too is a valid option.

 

[Brendan]

This has probably been covered before but did Vatican II call for the priest to face the people? Or was this an innovation that was implemented? I am for Ad orientum in the Mass!

The Mass promugated after Vatican II allows for the Mass to be said V.P.

 

[stephraim]

There are other tell-tale signs in the rubrics that also assume that Ad Orientem is being used. For example, when the rubrics state “he faces the people”, this assumes that Ad Orientem is being used.

I think more obvious are the rubrics which state “the Priest, turned towards the people”, “the Priest genuflects…and, while facing the people, says aloud:”, and “the Priest, facing the altar, says quietly:” (cf. Ordo Missae White Book, nos. 127, 132, 133).

If in fact the priest is always facing the people, the rubrics specifying him to “face the people” and “face the altar” are redundant since he would already be facing that way. The “turned towards the people” is more suggestive, for it makes one wonder where he is turning from (especially since he just said the Lord’s Prayer and the Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti, both of which were said ad orientem in the EF).“Turned” is the translation of the latin "conversus"0(cf. converto) which means "having been revolved, rotated, turned).

 

[Sirach2]

That makes sense to me, Brendan. I think that after 40 years of VP, someone could be scandalized if suddenly they were to attend mass and see the other posture - and certainly, those who would be scandalized do not frequent the L&S forum of Catholic Answers and read Benedictgal’s posts supporting AO.

Personally, the uniformity that now exists over a whole generation is something I appreciate, regardless of how the other form may be superior in the minds of some. Like it or not, the OF liturgy will no doubt continue to be celebrated using VP. That’s where opponents are free to go to the EF.

 

[stephraim]

I know quite a few priests who DO see the theological benefit of saying Mass A.O., but choose not to because of the number of complaints that they expect to recieve from the parishioners. So they simply choose V.P. since it too is a valid option.

Yes, I think most see it as “pastorally” beneficial. Some, I believe, do not know that ad orientem is allowed, possibly because they are young and have never experienced it. I myself did not know anything about ad orientem until a few years ago; I just assumed versus populum was always done for two thousand years.

 

[malphono]

I know quite a few priests who DO see the theological benefit of saying Mass A.O., but choose not to because of the number of complaints that they expect to recieve from the parishioners. So they simply choose V.P. since it too is a valid option.

This brings to mind a priest whom I know personally (and there are, of course, others) who actually bucked the trend, so-to-speak. He decided to do a test and gauge the reaction. So, one Sunday (back some 6 or 7 years ago), he quietly gave ad orientem a try. The test results were interesting and even he was flabbergasted: not one complaint but a number of compliments and requests for catechesis! The next couple of Sundays he honored those requests and spoke about ad orientem from the pulpit, giving some explanation of of the posture and the ancient tradition behind it. When he was transferred 2 or 3 years later, the new pastor refused to celebrate ad orientem, despite the fact that there was great interest in it from the parishioners. Needless to say, the parish was disappointed.

 

[japhy]

This has probably been covered before but did Vatican II call for the priest to face the people? Or was this an innovation that was implemented? I am for Ad orientum in the Mass!

No Vatican II document mentioned celebrations facing the people. Before Vatican II, there were already, in certain places, Masses celebrated facing the people, but these were not the norm except in places where the orientation of the church (like St. Peter’s in Rome) required it.

The possibility of celebrating Mass facing the people on a regular basis was mentioned in a 1964 document Inter Oecumenici. This document, issued during Vatican II, but not a “document of Vatican II”, said:
49. In Masses celebrated with a congregation, the lessons, epistle, and gospel are to be read or sung facing the people:

1. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.
2. … It is lawful to celebrate Mass facing the people even on an altar where there is a small but becoming tabernacle.

 

[Digitonomy]

For example, during the Consecration, the rubrics state the priest “shows” the Sacred Host and the chalice to the faithful. If he is verses populum, there is really no need to do that emphatically because the faithful are already seeing what is happening.

This is usually true in a church with a flat floor plan, or especially one where the congregation slopes up toward the back, amphitheater-style. However, if the altar area is raised relative to the congregation, some of the “action” on the altar may be partially or completely obscured by the front edge of the altar, simply because of the perspective of the congregation.

 

[Catholic87]

I love Pope Benedict and pray for him every day…but if he supports ad orientem why doesn’t he himself celebrate the mass ad orientem??

 

[Montalo]

I love Pope Benedict and pray for him every day…but if he supports ad orientem why doesn’t he himself celebrate the mass ad orientem??

Thanks to the architecture, in St. Peters Basilica, ad orientem is versus populum

 

[japhy]

I love Pope Benedict and pray for him every day…but if he supports ad orientem why doesn’t he himself celebrate the mass ad orientem??

He has celebrated ad orientem on occasion, and I think he does in his private chapel.

But one of the reasons he does not celebrate ad orientem in public more often is given in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, where he recommends placing a crucifix on the altar when celebrating versus populum so that there is a common focal point without being all radical and turning things around again. He advocates small steps taken slowly.

 

[stephraim]

Thanks to the architecture, in St. Peters Basilica, ad orientem is versus populum

He has celebrated ad orientem on occasion, and I think he does in his private chapel.

But one of the reasons he does not celebrate ad orientem in public more often is given in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, where he recommends placing a crucifix on the altar when celebrating versus populum so that there is a common focal point without being all radical and turning things around again. He advocates small steps taken slowly.

I must agree with both japhy and Montalo. Pope Benedict hast celebrated ad orientem publicly in the Sistine Chapel 3 times, I believe. He is also acutely aware of the disasters of making liturgical changes too fast. Also, due to topography and the attempt to imitate the Inner Temple of Jerusalem, St. Peter’s Basilica is occidented. Thus, if one wanted to face ad orientem, he would be facing the people (versus populum). Interestingly enough, in the first millennium, during the Eucharistic Prayer (and perhaps at other moments during the liturgy) everyone faced east, thus turning their backs to the action on the altar.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Just wanted to say great thread. Its appreciated.