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

[pnewton]

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 .

I simply think there is another logical option. Being linked a lot here is not really indicative of anything, except that it is linked a lot. Surely nothing in the article is detrimental at all. I do not see any reason the site should be discredited. It is just one article reflecting this author’s interpretation of the GIRM’s red stuff.

I just like to bear in mind that it is the bishop’s that are tasked with this job. All the one’s I have seen (including the Bishop of Rome)celebrate Mass do so ad populum. While my own experience is limited, I think this is the norm (if I use the word in a non-liturgical way).

 

[zab]

It may be interesting, but the article is flawed from the very beginning, therefore all opinions are suspect, at best.

She said “the article is flawed”.

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.”

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:
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."
Not so. That is not what she wrote. That is not her exact words.

 

[ProVobis]

If you’ll excuse the title, here is an Ad Orientem Mass in OF. Note the “conversus” (turning to) people when addressing the congregation.

youtube.com/watch?v=_8qAKHSGS1o

I understand Masses at St. John Cantius in Chicago are done in similar fashion, both Latin and English.

 

[FrDavid96]

She said “the article is flawed”.

Not so. That is not what she wrote. That is not her exact words.

Is there a point to your post, other than the obvious that you’re just being annoying?

 

[FrDavid96]

I simply think there is another logical option. Being linked a lot here is not really indicative of anything, except that it is linked a lot. Surely nothing in the article is detrimental at all. I do not see any reason the site should be discredited. It is just one article reflecting this author’s interpretation of the GIRM’s red stuff.

I just like to bear in mind that it is the bishop’s that are tasked with this job. All the one’s I have seen (including the Bishop of Rome)celebrate Mass do so ad populum. While my own experience is limited, I think this is the norm (if I use the word in a non-liturgical way).

I think that, at this point in history, with regard to this very specific topic (ad orientem) we’ve completely lost any perspective of what the Council meant or said, and what the Church’s documents meant or said at the time.

Our experience right now is that versus populum is the norm. There’s no doubt about that. Whether the historic documents and events were interpreted correctly or not has become a moot point. At the same time, however, there is undoubtedly a growing movement to return to an ad orientem posture.

As I see it, the real question is “what do we do about it now?” Should the Church consider making the rubrics more clear? (I think “yes.”) Should the Church consider making one form or the other obligatory (at least where it’s physically possible)? Should this be universal or should it be determined by each bishop’s conference? Should the matter be made explicitly optional, to be determined by each celebrant for each Mass?

I do think that something needs to be done or said. I think that the matter needs to be settled one way or another. The present state of confusion that we have now does not serve the common good.

Someone might come back and say “it doesn’t matter.” But really it does matter. The reason it matters is because there are bishops out there who are mandating the versus populum position, and thereby acting beyond their own competence (I would also say the same thing in reverse, but I don’t think there are any bishops who are mandating ad orientem).

We need clarity here; and unfortunately we don’t have it.

 

[Sirach2]

Is there a point to your post, other than the obvious that you’re just being annoying?

And YOU are disgracing the priesthood by your continual accusations against this woman, all of which are false.

From the article:

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,[Agree. It was not in the Conciliar documents per se, but in the Inter Oecumenici instruction, whose Commission was called forth officially in a Council document.]
• that it was never mandated by any law or instruction of the Church, [Wrong! it was directed in[/COLOR] the instruction Inter Oecumenici approved and confirmed by Motu Proprio of Paul VI, which was the very reason our Churches changed the position of the altar]
• 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. [agree, but not until 30 years later with the Notitiae clarifying that ad orientem is a valid option. Versus populum had already been commissioned in I.O. in 1964.]

Why do you not admit that you are wrong? Show some proof for your rationale or keep your tongue silent. You have never once shown WHERE she is wrong, but persist in saying so anyway. We’re supposed to believe you just because you say so?

 

[ProVobis]

I just like to bear in mind that it is the bishop’s that are tasked with this job. All the one’s I have seen (including the Bishop of Rome)celebrate Mass do so ad populum. While my own experience is limited, I think this is the norm (if I use the word in a non-liturgical way).

As Fr David pointed out, some bishops have mandated the ad orientem position.(I believe the bishop in the EWTN diocese did just that.) In that case, yeh, that would be the norm for that diocese. No choice in the matter for anyone.

 

[pnewton]

Someone might come back and say “it doesn’t matter.” But really it does matter. The reason it matters is because there are bishops out there who are mandating the versus populum position, and thereby acting beyond their own competence (I would also say the same thing in reverse, but I don’t think there are any bishops who are mandating ad orientem).

I like that you stated they were acting beyond their competence, not their authority. The first is an opinion, and no doubt true in some cases. However, I would like to point out that a bishop need not rely on his own competence. Also, there could be valid disciplinary reasons that might make such a rule needed. I sure wouldn’t judge any such action from my state of ignorance. I think it safe to stick to the advice of the Catechism and assume the most charitable interpretation of such an action, especially considering, you know, a bishop, versus little old me.

 

[pnewton]

As Fr David pointed out, some bishops have mandated the ad orientem position.(I believe the bishop in the EWTN diocese did just that.) In that case, yeh, that would be the norm for that diocese. No choice in the matter for anyone.

He said, “bishops out there who are* mandating the versus populum *…”

You would have to put me down as one of those who do not think it such a big deal, neither am I confused by it one way or the other. Culturally, I like the priest facing the people. It is what I am used to and it seems more natural. Liturgically, I like the priest leading the people, on their behalf, facing liturgical east with them. I think Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Spirit of the Liturgy, sold me on it.

 

[otjm]

When I read these words:

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.”

Most people would accept that a person would be in error about something without that impugning the author’s character.

And I thought this was the year of Mercy. I would suggest that it might be time to grant some. This has been ground down to exceedingly fine powder; perhaps it is time to move on to other parts of the conversation.

 

[FrDavid96]

And YOU are disgracing the priesthood by your continual accusations against this woman, all of which are false.

From the article:

Why do you not admit that you are wrong? Show some proof for your rationale or keep your tongue silent. You have never once shown WHERE she is wrong, but persist in saying so anyway. We’re supposed to believe you just because you say so?

Get your facts straight.

Don’t you dare make accusations like that when it is YOU who have the facts completely reversed.

You’re making a fool of yourself.

 

[FrDavid96]

I like that you stated they were acting beyond their competence, not their authority. The first is an opinion, and no doubt true in some cases. However, I would like to point out that a bishop need not rely on his own competence. Also, there could be valid disciplinary reasons that might make such a rule needed. I sure wouldn’t judge any such action from my state of ignorance. I think it safe to stick to the advice of the Catechism and assume the most charitable interpretation of such an action, especially considering, you know, a bishop, versus little old me.

In that sense, competence and authority mean the same thing (they mean different things in everyday language, but in when we’re talking church laws, competence and authority are actually synonyms.) It’s not within the bishop’s authority to mandate versus populum (except in limited circumstances).

It isn’t a matter of opinion. The authority of a bishop is limited. He cannot prohibit what universal norms allow.

It’s not a matter of charity either. There’s nothing wrong about speaking objectively about what authority a bishop does or does not have. That authority is defined by the law. For example (yes. an easy example to make the point), anyone can write that a bishop does not have the authority to appoint new Cardinals. That doesn’t mean one is being uncharitable. It is simply stating what the law already makes clear.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not within the bishop’s authority to mandate versus populum (except in limited circumstances).

Well, that is an opinion. Obviously at least one bishop holds a different opinion. I have never seen where this particular area is outside of the bishop’s authority. I read where 839.2 directed the bishop to, “see to it that the prayers and other pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in harmony with the norms of the Church.” But what the norm is and is not is kind of the question. It is just begging the question to say that one position is the norm and therefore falls under this canon.

Like I said, I would be open to something from canon law or the GIRM that limits the bishop in this, but if one bishop understands he has the authority to do this, I tend to believe that it is at least possible, that is debatable, that he does have this authority. We are not speaking of a contradiction to the GIRM, but something which is not even mentioned in the GIRM. I guess we will just have to disagree on this, at least until and unless some clarification is made, as was done with kneeling for communion a few years ago.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And YOU are disgracing the priesthood by your continual accusations against this woman, all of which are false.

From the article:

Why do you not admit that you are wrong? Show some proof for your rationale or keep your tongue silent. You have never once shown WHERE she is wrong, but persist in saying so anyway. We’re supposed to believe you just because you say so?

As a theologian, I must say that Father David’s critique of the person who attacked the thesis of the Professor is quite correct and quite valid; his explanation was quite sound.

The premise of the person Father David was addressing was regarding her effort to invalidate the argument of an academic’s article by stating that (1) the professor was in fundamental error on facts asserted and (2) that said error should cause suspicion to any and all resulting theses that he was presenting in his article and (3) that his scholarship in toto should be suspect.

These are, academically, very serious and grave assertions. If one is making such assertions, one is obliged to present and defend academically the counter thesis. That is how the science of theology works. I believe that she was basing her own thesis, such as it was, on the basic maxim of Thomism that an error in initial premise will lead to a flawed conclusion.

In point of fact, it was she who was in factual error, and I might add on a most basic and fundamental point, in what she was asserting. She was attempting to undermine the professor’s article by discrediting the author – who is not here to defend himself, I might add – when she herself displayed a failure in the fundamental protocols of the most basic scholarship.

Inter oecumenici is not a council document, as Father has explained exhaustively. The lady is incorrect in what was the basis and foundation for her assertion. Nothing more should need be added to this. The thesis of her argument simply cannot be sustained from an academic’s perspective.

 

[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-…99-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

---

 

[FrDavid96]

[edited]

From the article:

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,[Agree. It was not in the Conciliar documents per se, but in the Inter Oecumenici instruction, whose Commission was called forth officially in a Council document.]

What Peter K. wrote was absolutely correct. No document of Vatican II mentioned this.

He did not say “no document from the consilium.”

What he wrote was correct and true.

that it was never mandated by any law or instruction of the Church, [Wrong! it was directed in the instruction Inter Oecumenici approved and confirmed by Motu Proprio of Paul VI, which was the very reason our Churches changed the position of the altar]

Again, what Peter wrote was correct.

No law or instruction ever mandated this. He did not claim that no document suggested it, or that no document mentioned it. He wrote “never mandated.” Since it was never mandated, what he wrote was completely correct and true.

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. [agree, but not until 30 years later with the Notitiae clarifying that ad orientem is a valid option. Versus populum had already been commissioned in I.O. in 1964.]

Peter never made any claims as to when such things were said or written. The fact that he does not mention a date does not make him wrong.

[edited]
See post #10, 13, 15, 19, 25, and most recently in 32.
In each post I do very clearly show that the CAF poster (who unjustly criticized Peter K’s article) had at least one fact wrong.

[edited]

 

[Sirach2]

Get your facts straight.

Don’t you dare make accusations like that when it is YOU who have the facts completely reversed.

You’re making a fool of yourself.

(Nice guy, Father )

I have them straight, and I presented them with references…several times.
I asked the same courtesy of you … show me, Oneofthewomen, and the readers of this forum where the ‘content’ is incorrect. Where is your proof we are wrong? What is it that you find objectionable to the ‘content’ … leaving aside your rude response to the wording she used to express her truth?

 

[Sirach2]

What Peter K. wrote was absolutely correct. No document of Vatican II mentioned this.
Agreed

He did not say “no document from the consilium.”
He was uninformed and with his agenda to promote Ad Orientum, left it unsaid.

No law or instruction ever mandated this. He did not claim that no document suggested it, or that no document mentioned it. He wrote “never mandated.” Since it was never mandated, what he wrote was completely correct and true.

Wrong, it was mandated by Motu Proprio of Paul VI, which included a mandated date for it to be put into place. My post #12 Kindly disprove the veracity of this, if you have conflicting “facts.”

This Instruction was prepared by the Consilium

 

[Sirach2]

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.

That was the occasion of the CDWDS providing a response in 1993, that said both postures are valid. However, for that period of nearly 30 years, the document was clearly understood as it was translated, and the altars throughout our Churches were adapted according to 299-GIRM. Do you have a remedy for putting the horse back into the barn?

Unless, and until the Local Ordinary instructs their clergy to discontinue the present use of the altar and versus populum celebration, this argument is really quite futile. Laity arguing on this forum aren’t going to solve anything to their liking.

As Clare said long ago, why debate over what cannot be changed? Let’s all recite the Serenity Prayer and start the Year of Mercy … with mercy!

 

[Brendan]

Are you prepared to answer my request to show where the ‘content’ as present in my post #12 is wrong?

The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.

The Motu Proprio states that it is permitted. Are ‘permitted’ and ‘mandated’ the same thing?