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

[edward_george]

It is worth pointing out here that the paragraph of Inter Oecumenici that forms the basis of paragraph 299 of the GIRM is actually badly translated from Latin in the English version of the GIRM. Here is the English text:

1. The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. Moreover, the altar should occupy a place where it is truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[115] The altar should usually be fixed and dedicated.

In English, because word order determines modification, and because “Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people” is closest to the clause “which is desirable wherever possible,” it would seem then that “Mass…facing the people” is “desirable wherever possible.” Now, it is worth nothing that even if that’s how it ought to be translated, the document doesn’t mandate Mass facing the people, but simply says that it is desirable. However, the Latin says something different:

1. Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit. Altare eum autem occupet locum, ut revera centrum sit ad quod totius congregationis fidelium attentio sponte convertatur.114 De more sit fixum et dedicatum.

Again, the phrases are ordered such that the English translation comes out like this. However, the phrase “quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit” is not referring to “celebratio versus populum peragi possit,” but to “altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum.” In other words, what is “desirable wherever possible” is not “celebration…facing the people,” but that “the altar should be built separate from the wall.” “Quod” refers back to the main clause of the sentence, not to the one closest to it. For more on this, check out this link:

wdtprs.com/blog/2006/04/what-does-girm-299-really-say/

This includes the text of a response from the Congregation for Divine Worship that answers precisely this question:

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing 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:

Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, 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.

-ACEGC

 

[andrewstx]

You know I am getting older (age 60) and I have never seen a Mass celebrated ad orinetum.

I have seen Episcopal celebrations that were ad orientum . So much for the “liberalism”

And of course Orientum is the only way Orthodox will serve the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Sirach2]

This may be a good point to summarize the ruling by the CDWDS, and please note this was dated 1993, nearly thirty years since the directive of the Inter Oecumenici in 1964.

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.
**(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.
T****he 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.

These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition.

After these 50 years since Vatican II, and the renovation of most altars to accommodate the instruction in I.O., the Church is not going to mandate a return to the A.O. posture, especially since bishops, clergy and laity are used to this.

What is vitally important is the interior spiritual orientation of all, as was stated in the Notitiae. We are nitpicking one another to death over a lawful posture whether it is celebrated A.O. or V.P., and has engendered a needless cooling of charity as a result. I would hope traditionalists who still prefer to have their form reinstated would relax and refrain from trying to upset the membership here, since nothing may change unless it comes from the Local Ordinary.

 

[edwest2]

I hope the following from Pope Benedict helps to clarify things:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Ed

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

And this is the last I have to say on the matter:

You should not be making false accusations against others when what the other person wrote was absolutely correct and the reality is that you are the one who is in the wrong.

You are the one playing semantics. The author wrote that it was never mandated. That is absolutely correct. It is correct 100% no matter how one reads it.

All you are accomplishing is to call into question your own credibility. If you’re going to post false accusations, then try to backtrack by playing word games and telling everyone that we should interpret what you mean and not what you write then don’t expect anyone else to give you any credibility.

What you wrote was wrong in two ways. You falsely accused the author of using flawed logic (your exact words were “flawed from the very beginning”) and saying that “all [her] opinions are suspect” when it is you who have the facts wrong, not the other person.

When it is you who throw out an accusation like that I just mentioned, you cannot then expect everyone else to accept that and refrain from pointing out that it is you who have your facts wrong.

You need to get your own facts straight before you accuse someone else, who actually does have the facts correct.

 

[zab]

It is one thing to point out someone’s error. It is another thing to beat them up forever about it.

 

[Sirach2]

And this is the last I have to say on the matter:

You should not be making false accusations against others when what the other person wrote was absolutely correct and the reality is that you are the one who is in the wrong. **

You are the one playing semantics. The author wrote that it was never mandated. [True, he wrote it, but he was misinformed] That is absolutely correct. It is correct 100% no matter how one reads it. [Wrong again, per the mandate of I.O. in 1964]

All you are accomplishing is to call into question your own credibility. If you’re going to post false accusations, then try to backtrack by playing word games and telling everyone that we should interpret what you mean and not what you write then don’t expect anyone else to give you any credibility.

What you wrote was wrong in two ways. You falsely accused the author of using flawed logic (your exact words were “flawed from the very beginning”) and saying that “all [her] opinions are suspect” when it is you who have the facts wrong, not the other person.

When it is you who throw out an accusation like that I just mentioned, you cannot then expect everyone else to accept that and refrain from pointing out that it is you who have your facts wrong.

You need to get your own facts straight before you accuse someone else, who actually does have the facts correct.

Sorry to butt in again, but I believe your rant against this young lady is uncalled for, especially since she DID have it right. I demonstrated, as she did, that the document Inter Oecumenici definitely mandated that the altar be repositioned to allow for Versus Populum celebration. It was only after 30 years that the English translation was challenged, and the resulting Notitiae issued, clarifying that the posture is valid either way. Until then, the altars were rearranged according to what the bishops understood in their interpretation of the document.

She explained herself, but you wouldn’t let it slide and allow her to save face. Is that the manner of clergy these days? You made your point earlier and there was no need to publicly humiliate her!

 

[ProVobis]

It is one thing to point out someone’s error. It is another thing to beat them up forever about it.

It’s not that she didn’t fight back. How does one respond to a “Really, PV, are you being provocative on purpose or are you really that obtuse?” comment?

And this because I implied that “Its location in the place of worship should be truly central” wasn’t perhaps as fervently carried out as “facing the people” was?

 

[ProVobis]

It’s not that she didn’t fight back. How does one respond to a “Really, PV, are you being provocative on purpose or are you really that obtuse?” comment?

And this because I implied that “Its location in the place of worship should be truly central” wasn’t perhaps as fervently carried out as “facing the people” was?

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

I don’t understand why it is so necessary to discredit a supporting instruction as a Vatican II document. When I had a quick search of the Vatican docs. these five separate instructions seem to be very much considered documents pertaining to Council business. In fact they were labeled “Instruction for the Right Application of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council” parts 1 to 5 the first being Inter Oecumenici.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_comunicato-stampa_en.html

 

[pianistclare]

It is one thing to point out someone’s error. It is another thing to beat them up forever about it.

Agreed.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t understand why it is so necessary to discredit a supporting instruction as a Vatican II document.

I believe three Popes have now said all Vatican II documents are to be read in light of tradition, or something to that effect. If you want to lump all supporting instructions and liturgical committees and parish committees formed from the council into that, be my guest. The OP can hardly be blamed for the “rupture” of continuity evidenced by events in the 60’s and 70’s.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sorry to butt in again, but I believe your rant against this young lady is uncalled for, especially since she DID have it right. I demonstrated, as she did, that the document Inter Oecumenici definitely mandated that the altar be repositioned to allow for Versus Populum celebration. It was only after 30 years that the English translation was challenged, and the resulting Notitiae issued, clarifying that the posture is valid either way. Until then, the altars were rearranged according to what the bishops understood in their interpretation of the document.

She explained herself, but you wouldn’t let it slide and allow her to save face. Is that the manner of clergy these days? You made your point earlier and there was no need to publicly humiliate her!

No. You are completely in the wrong.

She did not have it right. Not at all. The author of the article had it right. The poster here had it completely wrong by making a false accusation against the author and by calling into question the author’s facts (which were accurately represented) and the author’s credibility.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t understand why it is so necessary to discredit a supporting instruction as a Vatican II document. When I had a quick search of the Vatican docs. these five separate instructions seem to be very much considered documents pertaining to Council business. In fact they were labeled “Instruction for the Right Application of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council” parts 1 to 5 the first being Inter Oecumenici.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_comunicato-stampa_en.html

Because it is not what someone called it, “which is most certainly a Vatican II document.”

It either is, or it is not.

Documents issued by ecumenical councils have a certain weight (whether they are constitutions, decrees, etc.). In matters of Catholic faith and teaching and morals, they have considerable weight indeed.

To call something a document of an ecumenical council when it is not a document of an ecumenical council is to make a statement that is not true.

The real issue is that someone accused a 3rd party (an author of an article) of using “flawed” logic and said that the entire article is “suspect at best.” based entirely on the CAF poster’s own mis-reading of the information. If you don’t see how that kind of reasoning is problematic, then I really don’t know what to say.

If a person is going to call into question someone else’s credibility (which is exactly what was done) then that person has a responsibility to get the facts right. I do not understand why some people have such a problem with that.

 

[pnewton]

I believe there is a logic error by the author. First, I would note that the quotes used do not state an implied orientation. He assumes that since the GIRM specifies certain directions, that this is evidence of a norm. It need not be so. If even the possibility existed for a priest to celebrate Mass ad orientem, then the GIRM would have to state these specific changes. The author did not account for this. He assumed that the specific directs indicated a norm, not a possibility, and there is no reason for this assumption. I would bet a thousand posts, that if we talked to this man, he prefers Mass celebrated ad orientem, and this is truly his reason for the assumption he made.

I propose that ad orientem is not the norm in the most critical meaning of the word, in that it is not normally done.

Also, the logic used reminds me a little bit of the Protestant argument that Mary had other children based on the word “until” in Scripture. I have always preferred not to read assumptions into things.

 

[pnewton]

The author of the article had it right. The poster here had it completely wrong by making a false accusation against the author and by calling into question the author’s facts (which were accurately represented) and the author’s credibility.

I regret that this is the disadvantage we have of posting links to articles like this. We get no chance to question something we see, and then receive a response that might enlighten us as to where we missed some point. As none of use know this author, I do not think there was any personal attack on his credibility. Rather, I think the criticism was with the article only.

 

[FrDavid96]

I regret that this is the disadvantage we have of posting links to articles like this. We get no chance to question something we see, and then receive a response that might enlighten us as to where we missed some point. As none of use know this author, I do not think there was any personal attack on his credibility. Rather, I think the criticism was with the article only.

When I read these words:

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.

I cannot see that as anything other than an attack on the author’s credibility, at least as far as the individual article is concerned.
When someone writes “all opinions are suspect, at best” what is that supposed to mean?

Do words no longer have meaning?

PS:
Just for the record, I had my pronouns wrong earlier. The author’s name is “Peter K.” so I should have used “he” rather than “she.”

 

[ProVobis]

In English, because word order determines modification, and because “Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people” is closest to the clause “which is desirable wherever possible,” it would seem then that “Mass…facing the people” is “desirable wherever possible.” Now, it is worth nothing that even if that’s how it ought to be translated, the document doesn’t mandate Mass facing the people, but simply says that it is desirable. However, the Latin says something different:

I had to look it up. Not saying it’s wrong, but expedit can actually mean a lot of things. I looked into two dictionaries and could not find “is desirable” among them. The Cassell’s Dictionary has “it is expedient, useful, advantageous” which is probably the closest to what the documents are trying to say IMO. The translation “desirable” is not quite etched in stone. It’s what I call a biased translation.

 

[edward_george]

It is worth pointing out here that the paragraph of Inter Oecumenici that forms the basis of paragraph 299 of the GIRM is actually badly translated from Latin in the English version of the GIRM. Here is the English text:

In English, because word order determines modification, and because “Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people” is closest to the clause “which is desirable wherever possible,” it would seem then that “Mass…facing the people” is “desirable wherever possible.” Now, it is worth nothing that even if that’s how it ought to be translated, the document doesn’t mandate Mass facing the people, but simply says that it is desirable. However, the Latin says something different:

Again, the phrases are ordered such that the English translation comes out like this. However, the phrase “quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit” is not referring to “celebratio versus populum peragi possit,” but to “altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum.” In other words, what is “desirable wherever possible” is not “celebration…facing the people,” but that “the altar should be built separate from the wall.” “Quod” refers back to the main clause of the sentence, not to the one closest to it. For more on this, check out this link:

wdtprs.com/blog/2006/04/what-does-girm-299-really-say/

This includes the text of a response from the Congregation for Divine Worship that answers precisely this question:

-ACEGC

 

[ProVobis]

I regret that this is the disadvantage we have of posting links to articles like this. We get no chance to question something we see, and then receive a response that might enlighten us as to where we missed some point. As none of use know this author, I do not think there was any personal attack on his credibility. Rather, I think the criticism was with the article only.

Maybe but IIRC this webite has been linked a few times by posters. One would think if there were any article detrimental to our faith or the Vatican on this site, that would have been pointed out and the entire site discredited a long time ago IMO. That doesn’t mean it’s infallible but it’s not a bad thing to read its materials.