"turning toward the people"

[japhy]

How did Pope Benedict XVI say Mass when he was visiting the US. I seem to recall that he faced the people

Yes, he did. And what is your point?

Also, which direction did Jesus face, when he instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper?

I bet he wasn’t sitting on one side of the table with everyone else on the other side. But we’re not recreating the environment of the Last Supper, so what does that matter?

There is early liturgical and historical evidence of worship during the Divine Liturgy facing the east, both bishop (or priest) and people; facing the people was rare and usually a geographical consequence.

 

[FAB]

Perhaps because of things like this: Pope Benedict celebrates Mass Ad Orientem and this denial of an obligation to celebrate facing the people.

Msgr. Guido Marini, the new master of ceremonies for papal liturgies, said that the traditional posture was used to emphasize the “**beauty and harmony of this architectural masterpiece,” **as it was originally designed for liturgical ceremonies. He noted in a public statement that in celebrating ad orientem, the Pope was not breaking with existing practice but “making use of a possibility contemplated by liturgical norms.”

You should provide the full explaination.

 

[FAB]

There are a lot of posters on CA who would be entirely docile to the Magesterium…if only it weren’t the Magesterium that we actually have.

So as a Fathfull Catholic, you question the due teaching authority of the church because it doesn’t follow what you think should be right. Frankly, I believe I will put my trust in them and not posters to CA

 

[VociMike]

The first document of Vatican II was the Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which is at vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html . It said:
“25. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.”

One of these liturgical books was the Roman Missal. The revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal of 1970 said: “262. In every church there should ordinarily be a fixed, dedicated altar, which should be freestanding to allows the ministers to walk around it easily and Mass to be celebrated facing the people.”

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“299. The altar should be built apart 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.”

The term “facing” appears 16 times in this 2002 GIRM, in 105, 124, 138, 146, 154, 157, 165, 185, 243, 244, 257, 268 (twice), 286, 299, and 310. The phrase “facing the people” occurs 10 times, and “facing the faithful” once.

Nobody is questioning that the Church allows it, and even encourages it. The question is, did it follow from Vatican II? Since nothing is to be found in the documents of Vatican II that call for it or even suggest it, one must look rather to the “let’s change everything” mentality that seemed to follow on the heels of Vatican II.

 

[John_Lilburne]

My point was that Vatican II said “change the liturgical books”. The books were changed, directing facing the people at Mass. So there is a link to Vatican II.

 

[dessert]

Our priest faces the people and the altar is versitile he could do ither way, go a wide circle around the altar. But the tabernacle is behind him off the altar on a table and the crucifix is behind him on the wall next to the tabernacle. but, he does face east. I think they should put the tabernacle on the altar but then he would not face the crucifix.

 

[VociMike]

My point was that Vatican II said “change the liturgical books”. The books were changed, directing facing the people at Mass. So there is a link to Vatican II.

Implicit in “change the liturgical books” was “change them in accord with what the Council has decreed”. And the Council did not decree anything about changing the direction of the priest relative to the people.

Again, this does not mean that the change was illegitimate, only that it cannot be traced to the Council, but rather to the general upheaval and experimentation that followed the Council.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The same direction as the Apostles, but then again we are dancing on the edge of antiquitarianism here.

But all were toward the people.

And the Pope has celebrated both ways, so if we follow that both should be allowed and supported.

 

[benedictgal]

nightwalker;3709905:

The same direction as the Apostles, but then again we are dancing on the edge of antiquitarianism here.

But all were toward the people.

Only if the local Bishops approve it.

Jim

You are quite wrong there. It was erroneously thought that the bishop needed to approve this poature, but the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued a document state just the opposite:

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 Congregation offered this explanation:

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.

It may be that when there were problems of space, or of some other kind, the apse represented the East symbolically. Today the expression versus orientem often means versus apsidem, and in speaking of versus populum it is not the west but rather the community present that is meant.

In the ancient architecture of churches, the place of the Bishop or the celebrating priest was in the center of the apse where, seated and turned toward the community, the proclamation of the readings was listened to. Now this presidential place was not ascribed to the human person of the bishop or the priest, nor to his intellectual gifts and not even to his personal holiness, but to his role as an instrument of the invisible Pontiff, who is the Lord Jesus.

When it is a question of ancient churches, or of great artistic value, it is appropriate, moreover, to keep in mind civil legislation regarding changes or renovations. Adding another altar may not always be a worthy solution.

There is no need to give excessive importance to elements that have changed throughout the centuries. What always remains is the event celebrated in the liturgy: this is manifested through rites, signs, symbols and words that express various aspects of the mystery without, however, exhausting it, because it transcends them. Taking a rigid position and absolutizing it could become a rejection of some aspect of the truth which merits respect and acceptance.

Therefore, this is a very legitimate posture for the priest. Incidentally, if this were not so, why would the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger advocate something contrary to the Church’s position. Think about it.

Oh, this response dates back to September 25, 2000 and was issued by Cardinal Arinze’s predecessor, Jose Cardinal Medina.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JimR-OCDS;3713269:

You are quite wrong there. It was erroneously thought that the bishop needed to approve this poature, but the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued a document state just the opposite:

The Congregation offered this explanation:

Therefore, this is a very legitimate posture for the priest. Incidentally, if this were not so, why would the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger advocate something contrary to the Church’s position. Think about it.

Oh, this response dates back to September 25, 2000 and was issued by Cardinal Arinze’s predecessor, Jose Cardinal Medina.

This only specifies that a Bishop may allow ad orintium, however, it does not remove his authority in setting the norms for his dioceses. In other words, a parish priest can not go oppose his Bishop on this.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;3713312:

This only specifies that a Bishop may allow ad orintium, however, it does not remove his authority in setting the norms for his dioceses. In other words, a parish priest can not go oppose his Bishop on this.

Jim

Jim, a bishop doesn’t necessarily have the authority to ban something that is perfectly legitimate. From the tenor of your post, you appear to not like this position, but, this does not mean that it is not legitimate.

What happened in the case of EWTN certainly wasn’t allowed. That bishop went too far. If something is legitimate, then, he can’t outright ban it anymore than he could ban using Latin for the Mass.

This response from the CDWDS came because there were complaints that bishops were telling priests not to adopt such a posture. The CDWDS affirmed that this, indeed, as a legitimate posture.

 

[benedictgal]

This most interesting piece comes from Fr. Lang’s book, “Turning Towards the Lord”:

The revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which was published for study purposes in the spring of 2000, has a paragraph bearing on the altar question:

Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit. [Let the main altar be constructed separate from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people -which is desirable wherever possible.]12

The subtle wording of this paragraph (possit - possibile) clearly indicates that the position of the celebrant priest facing the people is not made compulsory. The instruction merely allows for both forms of celebration. At any rate, the added phrase “which is desirable wherever (or whenever) possible (quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit)” refers to the provision for a freestanding altar and not to the desirability of celebration towards the people.13

Nonetheless various news reports about the revised General Instruction seemed to suggest that the position of the celebrant versus orientem - or versus absidem - was declared undesirable, if not prohibited.

This interpretation however has been rejected by the Congregation for Divine Worship in a response to a question submitted by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna. The response is dated 25 September 2000 and signed by Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez, then Prefect of the Congregation, and Archbishop Francesco Pio Tamburrino, its Secretary:

In the first place, it is 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 seiunctum (detached from the wall) and to the celebration versus populum (towards 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 towards the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-49), 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 towards the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Iesum Christum (towards 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.14

Obviously, the relevant paragraph of the General Instruction must be read in light of this clarification.15

Furthermore, Fr. Lang offers a statement made by Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, fresh out of the Council:

Early Critics of “facing the people”
Already in the sixties, theologians of international renown criticized the sweeping triumph of the celebration versus populum. In addition to Jungmann and Bouyer, Joseph Ratzinger, then professor of theology at Tübingen and peritus at the Council, delivered a lecture at the Katholikentag of 1966 in Bamberg that was received with much attention. His observations have lost nothing of their relevance:

We can no longer deny that exaggerations and aberrations have crept in which are both annoying and unbecoming. Must every Mass, for instance, be celebrated facing the people? Is it so absolutely important to be able to look the priest in the face, or might it not be often very salutary to reflect that he also is a Christian and that he has every reason to turn to God with all his fellow-Christians of the congregation and to say together with them ‘Our Father’?16

The German liturgist Balthasar Fischer concedes that the turning of the celebrant towards the people for the entire celebration of the Mass was never officially introduced or prescribed by the new liturgical legislation. In post-conciliar documents it was merely declared possible. In view of this, however, the fact that the celebration versus populum has become the dominant practice of the Latin Church shows the astounding extent to which “the active role of the people in the celebration of the Eucharist” has been realized; for Fischer this is indeed the fundamental issue of the liturgical reform after Vatican II.17

Mind you, Ratzinger’s statements were made just after the reforms were made. Therefore, even as early as that, there was still a cloud of doubt as to the posture of the priest under the Pauline Missal.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JimR-OCDS;3713396:

Jim, a bishop doesn’t necessarily have the authority to ban something that is perfectly legitimate. From the tenor of your post, you appear to not like this position, but, this does not mean that it is not legitimate.

What happened in the case of EWTN certainly wasn’t allowed. That bishop went too far. If something is legitimate, then, he can’t outright ban it anymore than he could ban using Latin for the Mass.

This response from the CDWDS came because there were complaints that bishops were telling priests not to adopt such a posture. The CDWDS affirmed that this, indeed, as a legitimate posture.

The Bishop has the authority to set the norms of his dioceses. A parish priest can not oppose him.

In the case of EWTN, they lost on the televised broadcast, but on the monastery, because they’re a religious order, were able to follow the norm set by Mother Angelica, who was the superior. This is common for all monastic orders.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;3713509:

The Bishop has the authority to set the norms of his dioceses. A parish priest can not oppose him.

In the case of EWTN, they lost on the televised broadcast, but on the monastery, because they’re a religious order, were able to follow the norm set by Mother Angelica, who was the superior. This is common for all monastic orders.

Jim

Jim, yes, a bishop has the authority to set norms in his diocese; however, he cannot ban something that Rome has declared as legitimate. In other words, he cannot ban the postur of ad orientsum any more than he can ban the use of Latin in the Mass. Furthermore, even Francis Cardinal Arinze noted some limitations on regulations that opened to the bishop: one such limitation is regulating the posture taken after one receives Holy Communion.

The notificatoin from the CDWDS was very clear on that. Furthermore, the liturgical documents themselves have the option of celebrating using either posture.

 

[VociMike]

benedictgal;3713509:

The Bishop has the authority to set the norms of his dioceses.

But only within the limits allowed by the Vatican.

 

[benedictgal]

JimR-OCDS;3713594:

But only within the limits allowed by the Vatican.

VociMike, I didn’t write that statement. JimR-OCDS did. I think that there is something wrong with the quote button. My name keeps getting ascribed to stuff I didn’t post.

 

[japhy]

The quoting problem started with #26. Please double-check your own posts when writing them; remember, you can edit them shortly after you’ve published them.

The problem is this. When (for whatever reason) a post has this in it (the < and > are stand-ins for the and ] that this bulletin board uses for markup):

<QUOTE=Andrew>
<QUOTE=Bobby>This is something that Bobby said.

the result is this:

Andrew:

Bobby:

This is something that Bobby said.

which is probably not what was intended… the ‘Andrew’ part is superfluous (and there by mistake). Please double-check your posts!

 

[junostarlighter]

How did Pope Benedict XVI say Mass when he was visiting the US. I seem to recall that he faced the people

Also, which direction did Jesus face, when he instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper?

Jim

Benedict makes a striking point about where the change in direction came from. Consider the following quote from Benedict in his Spirit of the Liturgy:

Because of topographical circumstances, it turned out that St. Peter’s faced west. Thus, if the celebrating priest wanted - as the Christian tradition of prayer demands - to face east, he had to stand behind the people and look - this is the logical conclusion - toward the people. For whatever reason it was done, one can also see this arrangement in a whole series of church buildings within St. Peter’s direct sphere of influence. The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea for the form of liturgy. The Eucharist - so it was said - had to be celebrated versus populum (toward the people). The altar - as can be seen in the normative model of St. 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 said nothing about “turning toward 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 recording that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the liturgy - the liturgy as a communal meal.

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 a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side was always empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table.”

 

[japhy]

Guys, let me explain the quoting problem (which started at post #26, it looks like). Here is what the “raw” source of post #26 looks like (< and > are stand-ins for and ], which this bulletin board uses for markup):
<quote=nightwalker;3709905>The same direction as the Apostles, but then again we are dancing on the edge of antiquitarianism here.

But all were toward the people.

And the Pope has celebrated both ways, so if we follow that both should be allowed and supported.
Only if the local Bishops approve it.
The two comments Jim made here are “But all were toward the people” and “Only if the local Bishops approve it.” The rest of the text (“The same direction … antiquarianism here.” and “And the Pope … and supported.”) belong to nightwalker.

The problem is that the markup system expects every tag to have a closing tag, and it operates from the innermost one outwards. Thus, the And the Pope… pair is handled first; then the <quote=nightwalker…> is attempted to be handled, but there’s no closing for it, so it’s rendered as plain text. The message is rendered like so:

The same direction as the Apostles, but then again we are dancing on the edge of antiquitarianism here.

But all were toward the people.

And the Pope has celebrated both ways, so if we follow that both should be allowed and supported.

(And what benedictgal types goes here.)
But nightwalker didn’t say that, JimR-OCDS did!

How did this all start? Probably because JimR-OCDS split nightwalker’s comment in two pieces, and didn’t properly close all the tags. I don’t know, Jim, if you use the GUI or the plain-text interface; if you use the GUI, then perhaps there’s a bug in it.

 

[japhy]

The Bishop has the authority to set the norms of his dioceses. A parish priest can not oppose him.

I would ask you to prove that a Bishop can so regulate the liturgy in his diocese so as to prevent a priest from celebrating ad orientem, or in Latin; or so as to prevent a person from receiving Holy Communion on his tongue.

All three are outside the purview of the Bishop’s regulation of the liturgy, because all three are universally permitted by the Church (as norms and long-standing tradition).