The Normativity of Ad Orientem Worship According to the Ordinary Form’s Rubrics

[edwest2]

An interesting article.

newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/11/the-normativity-of-ad-orientem-worship.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

As are the comments, several of which are quite learned; further, many if not most of them disagree to a greater or lesser extent with the premise of the article.

 

[ProVobis]

“Conversus” has indeed been mistranslated if we use the standards of translations prior to Vatican II. (“Deus, tu conversus vivificabis nos,” for example)

It seems we had a chance to retranslate to the same standards back in 2011 but either this was an oversight or intentionally dodging the issue, which did not appear to be a serious one at the time.

 

[drforjc]

As are the comments, several of which are quite learned; further, many if not most of them disagree to a greater or lesser extent with the premise of the article.

I would say a lesser extent for the most part. And the author is learned as well.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

It may be interesting, but the article is flawed from the very beginning, therefore all opinions are suspect, at best.
This is the first paragraph of the article, my emphases added

Today, most people who take a serious interest in liturgy know that celebrating ***Mass “facing the people” or versus populum was never mentioned even once in the documents of Vatican II, that it was never mandated by any law or instruction of the Church, that the Vatican said historic high altars should continue to be used and not supplanted by table altars, ***and that it remains perfectly lawful for any priest at any time to celebrate Mass “facing east” or ad orientem.

This does not take into account Inter oecumenici, which is most certainly a Vatican II document, the very one that gave instructions for the reform of the liturgy. Which addresses this very issue-

II. MAIN ALTAR

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.

I can’t help but to think that the author has an agenda.

 

[ProVobis]

This does not take into account Inter oecumenici, which is most certainly a Vatican II document, the very one that gave instructions for the reform of the liturgy. Which addresses this very issue-

I can’t help but to think that the author has an agenda.

Out of curiosity, how many parishes do you know of which have the altar as “truly” central? I presume this means people on all four sides, balanced equally?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Out of curiosity, how many parishes do you know of which have the altar as “truly” central? I presume this means people on all four sides, balanced equally?

I would say that your presumption is wrong. I think it is safe to assume that what is meant that the altar should be the “central point of focus”, not necessarily in the center of the room.

Really, PV, are you being provocative on purpose or are you really that obtuse?

And, to answer your question, I can think of 3 or 4 right off the top of my head, in my diocese alone.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Another excellent, informative article by Prof. Peter Kwasniewski. He presents a convincing case drawing directly from the language of the rubrics.

 

[ProVobis]

I would say that your presumption is wrong.

So you would say? Okay, fair enough. But I’m sure if you find a physics or engineering professor I’m sure he’d think of a “true” center as a center of gravity, or something to that effect. Most parishes today would be most tipsy.

Really, PV, are you being provocative on purpose or are you really that obtuse?

You’re the one who presented the translation. What, no one is supposed to question it?

And, to answer your question, I can think of 3 or 4 right off the top of my head, in my diocese alone.

Okay, then, thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

It may be interesting, but the article is flawed from the very beginning, therefore all opinions are suspect, at best.
This is the first paragraph of the article, my emphases added

This does not take into account Inter oecumenici, which is most certainly a Vatican II document, the very one that gave instructions for the reform of the liturgy. Which addresses this very issue-

I can’t help but to think that the author has an agenda.

Before accusing someone else of flawed logic, please have your facts straight.

Inter Oecumenici was not a document of the Second Vatican Council. It was an Instruction issued by the Congregation for Rites.

The Instruction was issued during the time of the Council, but it was not a document of the Council.

The actual documents of the Second Vatican Council can be read here:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

 

[Genesis315]

It may be interesting, but the article is flawed from the very beginning, therefore all opinions are suspect, at best.
This is the first paragraph of the article, my emphases added

This does not take into account Inter oecumenici, which is most certainly a Vatican II document, the very one that gave instructions for the reform of the liturgy. Which addresses this very issue-

I can’t help but to think that the author has an agenda.

FrDavid already pointed out that wasn’t a document of the Council. But it also doesn’t say what posture is normative. First, it just says freestanding altars are a preference–they are not required. Second, it is a preference because it allows for the option of Mass facing the people. But it doesn’t say this option should be the norm or not, just that it be possible.

I don’t think anyone here denies that Mass said facing the people is a legitimate option, the question is merely whether it is “normative” for the ordinary Roman rite. Granted, it’s a bit of an academic question, because the option of facing the people in practice is the most commonly used by far–in that sense, it is the norm. The point articles like this are usually trying to make is that Mass said with the more traditional posture shouldn’t be treated as something foreign to the rite forced on it by retrograde fundamentalists, but rather it is a posture natural to the rite which could legitimately be much more common.

 

[Sirach2]

Before accusing someone else of flawed logic, please have your facts straight.

Inter Oecumenici was not a document of the Second Vatican Council. It was an Instruction issued by the Congregation for Rites.

The Instruction was issued during the time of the Council, but it was not a document of the Council.

You are correct in saying that this directive is not contained in a Conciliar document, per se, but the Councilors of V-II directed that a Commission be established and the resulting document is entitled Inter Oecumenici.

Oneofthewomen was not off the mark with what she wrote, for in fact this is the sequence of the document she quoted.

1. The Consilium, which Pope Paul VI established by the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, has promptly taken up its two appointed tasks: to carry out the directives of the Constitution and of Sacram Liturgiam and to provide the means for interpreting these documents and putting them into practice.
2. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.

This Instruction was prepared by the Consilium by mandate of Pope Paul VI, and presented to the Pope by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, President of the Consilium. After having carefully considered the Instruction, in consultation with the Consilium and the Congregation of Rites, Pope Paul in an audience granted to Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larraona, Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, gave it specific approval as a whole and in its parts, confirmed it by his authority, and ordered it to be published and faithfully observed by all concerned, beginning on the first Sunday of Lent, March 7, 1965.

Much later, the meaning of this directive was challenged and it was officially clarified that either form of celebration is licit. So let’s respect each other’s preferences, especially that of the celebrant, and hold our tongues, refraining from accusations that are not backed up.

 

[FrDavid96]

You are correct in saying that this directive is not contained in a Conciliar document, per se, but the Councilors of V-II directed that a Commission be established and the resulting document is entitled Inter Oecumenici.

Oneofthewomen was not off the mark with what she wrote, for in fact this is the sequence of the document she quoted.

Much later, the meaning of this directive was challenged and it was officially clarified that either form of celebration is licit. So let’s respect each other’s preferences, especially that of the celebrant, and hold our tongues, refraining from accusations that are not backed up.

Something either “is” a document of the Second Vatican Council or it “is not” a document of the Second Vatican Council. It is a yes or a no. And it is indeed flawed logic to confuse one with the other.

 

[Sirach2]

Something either “is” a document of the Second Vatican Council or it “is not” a document of the Second Vatican Council. It is a yes or a no. And it is indeed flawed logic to confuse one with the other.

I don’t believe that poster intended to confuse the two, but she wished to point out that as a result of the Councilors’ “directive,” which IS written in the documents, the Commission’s decision changed the orientation of the celebrant to face the congregation. This resulted in our altars being “free-standing.” As per Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI.

Technically, she was correct in stating the reason for the change and quoting the appropriate document. Most of us know what she meant.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t believe that poster intended to confuse the two, but she wished to point out that as a result of the Councilor’s “directive,” which IS written in the documents, the Commission’s orientation was to face the congregation. This resulted in our altars being “free-standing.” As per Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI.

No. The poster claimed that the author (on a different site) is “flawed” and “suspect” (those words) because the CAF poster wrote "Inter oecumenici, which is most certainly a Vatican II document.’

It is not a Vatican II document.

Do you understand what it means that something either “is” or “is not” what a person claims?

When someone writes the words “is most certainly a Vatican II document” when the fact is that it is-not, then that statement is not true. Do you understand how this works?

 

[ProVobis]

FrDavid already pointed out that wasn’t a document of the Council. But it also doesn’t say what posture is normative. First, it just says freestanding altars are a preference–they are not required. Second, it is a preference because it allows for the option of Mass facing the people. But it doesn’t say this option should be the norm or not, just that it be possible.

I would agree with that. Since I like to look into the history of such things, I found that facing the people had not been exactly foreign to many Catholics before the documents were written. It seems the documents simply gave a stamp of approval to such trends. I would not categorize it in the “rupture of continuity” category, although the end result of having ALL liturgies facing the people (and all-vernacular, if I may add) sure seems like it.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I don’t believe that poster intended to confuse the two, but she wished to point out that as a result of the Councilors’ “directive,” which IS written in the documents, the Commission’s decision changed the orientation of the celebrant to face the congregation. This resulted in our altars being “free-standing.” As per Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI.

Technically, she was correct in stating the reason for the change and quoting the appropriate document. Most of us know what she meant.

Thank you Sirach2, for sticking up for me, and understanding what I meant. This is the problem with this sub-forum, too many people who just have to argue about semantics.

I see where there may be a misunderstanding, but, I also think that sometimes people just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

The author of the original article in question made a statement that there was no instruction from the Vatican on this subject. All I was trying to point out was that statement was incorrect. There were instructions from the Vatican, which all came out of the constitutions of VII. Now we can argue all day long if they were prudent or not, but the Vatican did say something, and THAT is all I was trying to point out.

 

[ProVobis]

There were instructions from the Vatican, which all came out of the constitutions of VII.

One can claim today’s parish liturgical committees and such all came out of Vatican II as well, but that doesn’t mean the Vatican or even the local bishop necessarily stands behind them. Just sayin…

And whether this is all argumentum gratia argumenti, I’ll leave for higher-ups to decide that.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you Sirach2, for sticking up for me, and understanding what I meant. This is the problem with this sub-forum, too many people who just have to argue about semantics.

I see where there may be a misunderstanding, but, I also think that sometimes people just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

The author of the original article in question made a statement that there was no instruction from the Vatican on this subject. All I was trying to point out was that statement was incorrect. There were instructions from the Vatican, which all came out of the constitutions of VII. Now we can argue all day long if they were prudent or not, but the Vatican did say something, and THAT is all I was trying to point out.

You began the sub-topic by calling someone else “flawed” and “suspect.” That’s what you wrote. You made an accusation against someone else. You wrote exactly these words “This does not take into account Inter oecumenici, which is most certainly a Vatican II document.”

That document is not a Vatican II document. When you claim “it most certainly is” one then it is not a matter of semantics to point out that what you wrote was wrong. It’s is an issue of fact.

When one says “it most certainly is” when the fact is that it is-not that statement you wrote is not true and the original author must be defended.

You cannot attempt to discredit someone else by making a false claim and then come back and say that you want other people to interpret what you meant rather than what you wrote (unless, of course, it was a typo which can happen).

**My point still stands: if you are going to accuse someone else of flawed logic and call someone else’s words “suspect” then you have an obligation to do so in a way that is not-flawed. ** When you base such accusations on untruths, you only show your own logic to be flawed and only make one suspicious of your own posts.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You began the sub-topic by calling someone else “flawed” and “suspect.” That’s what you wrote. You made an accusation against someone else. You wrote exactly these words “This does not take into account Inter oecumenici, which is most certainly a Vatican II document.”

That document is not a Vatican II document. When you claim “it most certainly is” one then it is not a matter of semantics to point out that what you wrote was wrong. It’s is an issue of fact.

When one says “it most certainly is” when the fact is that it is-not that statement you wrote is not true and the original author must be defended.

You cannot attempt to discredit someone else by making a false claim and then come back and say that you want other people to interpret what you meant rather than what you wrote (unless, of course, it was a typo which can happen).

**My point still stands: if you are going to accuse someone else of flawed logic and call someone else’s words “suspect” then you have an obligation to do so in a way that is not-flawed. ** When you base such accusations on untruths, you only show your own logic to be flawed and only make one suspicious of your own posts.

Fr. David, with all due respect, and this will be the last I have to say on the subject, I stand by what I wrote. I see where it may be unclear, but I was answering what the author of the original article stated that there was no instruction from the Vatican on this, and VII said nothing about it. That statement is not true. While it may not be addressed specifically in a VII document, the Consilium was formed to implement the reforms of VII and the Vatican did put out a directive. That is what I am addressing. The author of the ORIGINAL ARTICLE said
"that it was never mandated by any law or instruction of the Church".

Now, again, we can argue semantics, that it was never “mandated”, but none the less, there was instruction from the Vatican, as a direct result of VII.

That, and that alone, is my issue. That is the false premise I am talking about.