SPLIT: Ad orientum in the OF Mass

[benedictgal]

I do not want to derail this thread, however, there are some misconceptions about the celebrant’s direction that I believe should be addressed.

First of all, the priest is not turning his back towards the people when he chooses to face liturgical East. He is, in fact, turning towards the Lord. Let’s read what then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote about this particular posture:

The common turning toward the East was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”. As one of the fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J.A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession toward the Lord. They did not lock themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us…

Can the original form of Christian prayer still say something to us today, or should we try to find our own form, a form for our own times? Of course, we cannot simply replicate the past. Every age must discover and express the essence of the liturgy anew. The point is to discover this essence amid all the changing appearances. It would surely be a mistake to reject all the reforms of our century wholesale. When the altar was very remote from the faithful, it was right to move it back to the people. In cathedrals this made possible the recovery of the tradition of the altar at the crossing, the meeting-point of the nave and the presbyterium. It was also important clearly to distinguish the place for the Liturgy of the Word from the place for the strictly Eucharistic liturgy. For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense. In the Psalm the hearer digests what he has heard, takes it into himself, and transforms it into prayer, so that it becomes a response.

Turn to the East is essential

On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer…

When my priest friend has celebrated Mass Ad Orientem, he is not turning his back to me, but, he is leading us in prayer, turning towards the Lord. It is not vital or essential that I have to see everything that does on at the altar. Then, the focus shifts to the celebrant as opposed to the sacrifice.

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth, then-Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, takes the Holy Father’s argument a step further:

Let us face it, all of us priests, bishops, and even cardinals, are human beings and so the temptation to place ourselves at the center makes us feel good — what I call “ego pampering”.

None of us is exempt from this, and now with the Missa versus populum [Mass facing the people], that danger is even greater. Facing the people increases chances of dis-attention and distraction from what we do at the altar, and the temptation for showmanship. In a beautiful article written by a German author, the following comments were made on the subject:

While in the past, the priest functioned as the anonymous go-between, the first among the faithful, facing God and not the people, representative of all and together with them offering the sacrifice … today he is a distinct person, with personal characteristics, his personal life style, his face turned towards the people. For many priests this change is a temptation they cannot handle … to them, the level of success in their performance is a measure of their personal power and thus the indicator of their feeling of personal security and self assurance.

(K.G. Rey, Pubertaetserscheinungen in der Katholischen Kirche [Signs of Puberty in the Catholic Church] Kritische Texte, Benzinger, Vol 4, p. 25).

Obviously, y’all are entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine. However, I think that it is a good think to have a properly formed knowledge about something so that we can use this as a basis for formulating opinions.

 

[stephraim]

I am completely in favor of ad orientem. I think that the OF when celebrated this way not only contributes to increased continuity with the EF (and antiquity) but places less emphasis on the Priest and more on the Holy Sacrifice.

 

[malphono]

I do not want to derail this thread, however, there are some misconceptions about the celebrant’s direction that I believe should be addressed.

First of all, the priest is not turning his back towards the people when he chooses to face liturgical East. He is, in fact, turning towards the Lord. Let’s read what then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote about this particular posture:

When my priest friend has celebrated Mass Ad Orientem, he is not turning his back to me, but, he is leading us in prayer, turning towards the Lord. It is not vital or essential that I have to see everything that does on at the altar. Then, the focus shifts to the celebrant as opposed to the sacrifice.

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth, then-Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, takes the Holy Father’s argument a step further:

Obviously, y’all are entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine. However, I think that it is a good think to have a properly formed knowledge about something so that we can use this as a basis for formulating opinions.

Very nicely said!

 

[stephraim]

Very nicely said!

Agreed.

 

[SimonDodd]

First of all, the priest is not turning his back towards the people when he chooses to face liturgical East. He is, in fact, turning towards the Lord.

Amen! Critics of ad orientem always describe it as the priest turning his back on the congregation. This would come as a surprise to the priests, who doubtless thought they were turning his face to God. What is revealed about someone’s focus when they use this locution?

 

[kozlosap]

I do not want to derail this thread, however, there are some misconceptions about the celebrant’s direction that I believe should be addressed.

First of all, the priest is not turning his back towards the people when he chooses to face liturgical East. He is, in fact, turning towards the Lord. Let’s read what then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote about this particular posture:

When my priest friend has celebrated Mass Ad Orientem, he is not turning his back to me, but, he is leading us in prayer, turning towards the Lord. It is not vital or essential that I have to see everything that does on at the altar. Then, the focus shifts to the celebrant as opposed to the sacrifice.

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth, then-Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, takes the Holy Father’s argument a step further:

Obviously, y’all are entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine. However, I think that it is a good think to have a properly formed knowledge about something so that we can use this as a basis for formulating opinions.

I knew I would get my hand swatted over this. I think most of us have spent enough time on these forums to understand the priest facing the East and the implication, however, the OP was asking what we love about the NO, and that just happens to be one of the reasons I prefer the NO to the EF. I asked one of the older priests at our parish about this very subject several months ago and he said that he much prefers to face the people. (He was ordained “pre” Vll.) Like I indicated before - just IMHO. Walk in Peace.

 

[benedictgal]

But didn’t Christ face His disciples when instituting the sacrament for the first time? And isn’t the celebrant acting in Persona Christi?

Here is just one final note on Ad Orientum, again, according to Pope Benedict XVI, in his book, “Spirit of the Liturgy”:

The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea for the form of the Liturgy. The Eucharist, so it was said, had to be celebrated versus populum (towards the people). The altar – as can be seen in the normative model of Saint Peter’s – had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community. This alone, so it was said, was compatible with the meaning of the Christian Liturgy, with the requirement of active participation. This alone conformed to the primordial model of the Last Supper.

These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that after the Council (which says nothing about “turning to the people”) new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal. In fact it is the most conspicuous consequence of a re-ordering that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the Liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the Liturgy – the Liturgy as a communal meal.

Misunderstanding of meal symbolism

This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:

The idea that celebration versus populum was the original form, indeed the way the Last Supper itself was celebrated, rests purely and simply on a mistaken idea of what a banquet, Christian or even non-Christian, was like in antiquity. In the earliest days of Christianity the head of table never took his place facing the other participants. Everyone sat or lay on the convex side of an S-shaped or horseshoe-shaped table. Nowhere in Christian antiquity could anyone have come up with the idea that the man presiding at the meal had to take his place versus populum. **The communal character of a meal was emphasized by precisely the opposite arrangement, namely, by the fact that everyone at the meal found himself on the same side of the table **(54f).

In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the ‘shape’ of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term ‘meal’. True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which He commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into the reasonable worship of God.

As I said, I do not want to derail the thread, but, there is a lot of misunderstanding of this particular posture, a very legitimate posture that does have its place in the OF. In fact, I have seen this done quite a bit down here and it helps to give us a proper orientation.

I think that what will really give the OF a greater boost will be the new translations because of the more sacral, elevated language of the texts.

 

[Luger]

Amen! Critics of ad orientem always describe it as the priest turning his back on the congregation. This would come as a surprise to the priests, who doubtless thought they were turning his face to God. What is revealed about someone’s focus when they use this locution?

Critics of versus populum ALWAYS describe it as the priest becoming the focus of the Mass. That it’s done so the celebrant can put on a show. Nothing more than mean-spirited absurdity.

 

[benedictgal]

Critics of versus populum ALWAYS describe it as the priest becoming the focus of the Mass. That it’s done so the celebrant can put on a show. Nothing more than mean-spirited absurdity.

With all due respect, perhaps you might want to read “Spirit of the Liturgy” by the Holy Father and Archbishop Ranjith’s speech on authentic Ars Celebrandi.

 

[SimonDodd]

Critics of versus populum ALWAYS describe it as the priest becoming the focus of the Mass. That it’s done so the celebrant can put on a show. Nothing more than mean-spirited absurdity.

Except they don’t. Indeed, the comment to which you replied didn’t. To the extent it can be construed as critical of versus populum (as you appear to have assumed, although that wasn’t actually my point), the criticism is that it makes the Mass excessively focussed on the congregation. So while I’m sure that is a criticism made along those lines, I really think you’re constructing something of a straw man here.

 

[Sirach2]

Benedictgal:

Here is just one final note on Ad Orientum, again, according to Pope Benedict XVI, in his book, “Spirit of the Liturgy”:

This book is written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict. In your constant zeal to promote his opinion as Cardinal, and justifying his words to imply an illicit posture in the OF, it is important to note that he has not changed his opinion during his papacy. All it would take is another Motu Proprio, and that has not occurred. A very good article appeared this month in Catholic Culture that addresses this important point.

First, it is absolutely critical to note that the mind of the Church or even of the Pope himself cannot be determined by looking at the writings of a future pope before he became pope. A cardinal’s election as pope does not in any way validate his earlier remarks, none of which were protected in the least by the grace of his later office. To assert that the mind of the Church is known from the work of Joseph Ratzinger in, say, 1990, is no wiser than saying it can be known by his common theological opponent, Walter Kasper.

So even if some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s remarks seem very negative in isolation from his entire body of work—or indeed even if it were possible to argue that his whole outlook on the Novus Ordo was negative (which was not the case)—this would tell us nothing about the mind of the Church. No, to learn the mind of the Pope (and therefore something of the mind of the Church) on such matters as the liturgy, we need to look to what the Pope has said while in office.
　
It is possible to debate the merits and demerits of any liturgy, but it is not possible to cite either Pope Benedict XVI or the mind of the Church as being anything less than in favor of the prescribed use of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Finally, no approved liturgy of the Church should ever be treated with disrespect, nor its adherents stigmatized if they are not disobedient, for it is a sacred thing.

 

[Luger]

This book is written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict. In your constant zeal to promote his opinion as Cardinal, and justifying his words to imply an illicit posture in the OF, it is important to note that he has not changed his opinion during his papacy. All it would take is another Motu Proprio, and that has not occurred. A very good article appeared this month in Catholic Culture that addresses this important point.

Amen.

 

[stephraim]

[edited]

Regarding ad orientem worship, facing east was THE norm in the early church. Remember, even if the Pope was on the opposite side of the altar (what we would now deem versus populum), during the Eucharistic Prayer the congregation would actually turn to face east, turning their backs to the Blessed Sacrament. We must also consider that almost all the liturgical scholars who argued for versus populum later recanted their position, stating clearly that ad orientem was more ancient and should be, in fact, the norm.

I too have seen very reverent and worshipful versus populum Masses, however, ad orientem Masses have more in common with our liturgical patrimony. After growing up with the OF all 30 years of my life, I finally experienced the EF and it’s reverence and ability to foster devotion truly touched me; moreso, even, than all of the reverent OF’s I’ve participated in. I love the OF, but I also believe that some elements should be closer to the EF.

May God bless us all.

 

[ProVobis]

This book is written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict.

Don’t forget that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a very high ranking member of the Magisterium of the Church, prior to becoming Pope. I wouldn’t just simply dismiss his writings and opinions because he wasn’t always a Pope.

 

[benedictgal]

This book is written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict. In your constant zeal to promote his opinion as Cardinal, and justifying his words to imply an illicit posture in the OF, it is important to note that he has not changed his opinion during his papacy. All it would take is another Motu Proprio, and that has not occurred. A very good article appeared this month in Catholic Culture that addresses this important point.

Actually, it is not an ilicit posture. Perhaps you might want to read this from the CDWDS (written back in 2000):

Prot. No 2036/00/L

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in no. 299 of the Instituto Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which, during the Eucharistic liturgy, the position of the priest versus absidem [facing towards the apse] is to be excluded.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

Negative, and in accordance with the following explanation.

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account.

It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum [detached from the wall] and to the celebration versus populum [toward the people]. The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc. It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.

However, whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as His instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the Eucharistic Synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is a legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesus Christum [toward God through Jesus Christ], as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned versus Deum [towards God] as its first spiritual movement.

It appears that the ancient tradition, though not without exception, was that the celebrant and the praying community were turned versus orientem [toward the East], the direction from which the Light which is Christ comes. It is not unusual for ancient churches to be “oriented” so that the priest and the people were turned versus orientem during public prayer.

Thus, a priest has the freedom to use both Ad Orientem and Versus Populum. The Holy Father does not need to issue an MP for that. Furthermore, the same points that the CDWDS made in this statement are the exact same ones that the former Cardinal Ratzinger made in his book.

 

[Sirach2]

Benedictgal:

Thus, a priest has the freedom to use both Ad Orientem and Versus Populum. The Holy Father does not need to issue an MP for that.
If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is legitimate and “often advisable”

I’m puzzled as to why you actively promote the former, with sacrcely a mention of this “often advisable” posture. Do you anticipate that those who read your posts will begin to lobby with their bishops to demand that this posture be used on a permanent basis? It really disturbs me now to read this, because I see the many posts in defense of the former as a means of division and dissension, when in fact, there is nothing amiss. It just simply is not in accord with Ratzinger’s personal preference. (And I emphacize "personal preference)

For that, I do thank you and I’ll keep this in my documents for future reference to quiet the dissenters who may be attached to it. Not that it is wrong to have a preference, but the wrongness, if you will, comes into play when folks beat the dead horse as if it is the ONLY way.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[Frosty]

Don’t forget that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a very high ranking member of the Magisterium of the Church, prior to becoming Pope. I wouldn’t just simply dismiss his writings and opinions because he wasn’t always a Pope.

I seriously doubt that most Catholics who have read any of Joseph Ratzinger’s numerous books, articles, commentaries etc before he was elected to the papacy simply dismiss his theories and opinions out of hand. Unless something written by him was a formal document put forth with the agreement of the Pope, then we are free to agree or disagree with his private theological opinions. The lengths that some go to attribute more weight to any private writing or utterance he made prior to his papacy as either proving or disproving someone’s own pet theory or ideology is quite remarkable. Sometimes I think it’s a shame that he didn’t have the gift of foresight to know that he would someday become Pope Benedict XVl. Perhaps if he did, he would have prefaced all his writing the same way he did when as Pope he prefaced his book “Jesus of Nazareth” by saying:

“Everyone is free then to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without there can be no understanding”.

 

[Sirach2]

Frosty:

Unless something written by him was a formal document put forth with the agreement of the Pope, then we are free to agree or disagree with his private theological opinions.

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. This permission to use AO may be restricted as well by other US bishops.

Needless to say, it is immaterial to quibble about this, since most parish priests use VP, and will most likely NOT change the direction. It does seem strange that the Cardinal’s book and preference is continuously quoted, despite the fact that our bishops have authority to regulate it, and VP is called “legitimate and often advisable.”

 

[benedictgal]

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. This permission to use AO may be restricted as well by other US bishops.

Needless to say, it is immaterial to quibble about this, since most parish priests use VP, and will most likely NOT change the direction. It does seem strange that the Cardinal’s book and preference is continuously quoted, despite the fact that our bishops have authority to regulate it, and VP is called “legitimate and often advisable.”

Actually, with all due respect, the CDWDS said no such thing. The only reason why the situation with Mother Angelica occurred was because the bishop can regulate a televised Mass in his diocese. That was the provision used in the case of EWTN. But, as far as the position of the priest during the Mass, the CDWDS stated that Ad Orientum was not to be excluded as a valid option. The Holy Father has celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass using this posture whenever he is in the Sistene Chapel.

Furthermore, what the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote does not, in any way, contradict what the statement that the CDWDS issued. In fact, both of them came out the same year, more or less. Incidentally, some time back, I called the CDWDS on a couple of matters and wound up speaking to the author of the book, “Turning Towards the Lord”, (I do not know if forum rules will permit me to post his name), a book that has a preface written by the former Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now on staff with the Congregation and who is also one of the Papal MCs, and he told me that Ad Orientem is certainly a valid posture. Inasmuch as a phone conversation does not carry the same weight as an actual documents (which I have already posted), it is consistent with what the CDWDS has stated all along.