Vatican liturgy chief urges priests to celebrate Mass facing east

[otjm]

If there is a feeling that people do not know much about the liturgy now, it should be remembered that people knew even less prior to Vatican 2. Ask most people who were old enough to attend and remember Mass prior to Vatican 2 why the priest faced the altar, and most will have no idea; and those who may know learned it since the changes to the liturgy.

And most I have spoken with over the years since, have said they like seeing what the priest is doing, instead of it all being hidden.

Did priests face liturgical east for centuries? Yes.

Did they also say the Mass in Latin for centuries? Yes.

The latter has been changed, as well as the former. And while Latin can still be used in the Mass (and Rome has made repeated suggestions that it be done), the appearance is that the majority, if not the great majority of parishes in the western world, do not use any Latin on any regular basis.

The Mass belongs to the Church. But the Church is not made up of the hierarchy; it is made up of the people of God - including the hierarchy and the laity. That may be different in Asia, or the Philippines, or Australia and the Islands, or in some or all of central and southern Americas, or in Africa. And it is possible that due to cultural differences, the Mass may be celebrated facing liturgical East, or have more or less Latin than other areas (although I imagine Africa may tend strongly to the vernacular in part due to prior colonial activity).

And unless Rome issues a new GIRM requiring the OF to be said facing liturgical East, I suspect that the vast majority of parishes in North America will not, just as they do not use Latin.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The East has a deep symbolism and significance for us as Christians. This goes back to our earliest days. The rising sun, each morning, speaks to us of the Second Coming of Christ who, when He appears in majesty, will traverse the sky from the East to the West

That being true, we don’t have the sort of orientation to our theology of prayer that marks, for example, Islam and turning toward Mecca

I remember the parish of my family and my childhood. It was built on a north/south axis. Before the council, the altar faced south as the priest read the Mass. The altar was moved after the liturgical reform and the priest offered the Mass at it facing north. The neighbouring parish, on the other hand, had an altar that faced west before the council; in that case, the old high altar was not moved but a new altar was erected and the priest faced east when he offered Mass at it…after the council. If the value is Mass facing east, that parish achieved it after the council

When I’ve offered Mass, for example, in St Peter’s Basilica, I’ve faced all directions of the compass but as there are only a few altars that actually face east, I remember exactly how many times I’ve celebrated Mass in the basilica while facing east

That’s not to say that Mass was not offered facing east before the liturgical reform; of course it was…although as I now think back at the prompting of this story, it really was not true of a great many churches where I have been or served as a priest because the building’s orientation would not permit it

As with so many things when it comes to “The way things were” or “How it used to be,” those of us who were actually there, all the way back then, know that it was not quite what some romanticise it into now in the second decade of the 21st century. I still remember what I lived and don’t need others to tell me the way it was…since I experienced it. This was not something lost at the time of the council

Frankly, the term “liturgical east” is a novel turn of phrase but it is of recent coinage. I never heard it decades ago and, as a professor of liturgy & sacraments, it came to its own at a specific moment in time

For all the talk when it arose, and then subsequently, there was no mandate directing a movement of the altar again and Pope Benedict said that he thought it would be too disruptive to make the move, which is why he chose not to mandate a change

I confess that the charm of the “liturgical east” concept eluded me. Saying I’m facing east “symbolically” when, according to the map, and in all actuality, I’m facing north is fundamentally contrary to my disposition. It’s a matter of indisputable fact that I’m physically facing the direction that I’m physically facing and saying that, even though that is accepted as true, for the purpose of an ascribed symbolism, we’re going to declare that I’m facing a different direction, namely…east, isn’t attractive to me as the priest presiding. All the while as the sun at early morning Mass rises off to my right and insists that east is really found there where the rising sun actually and incontrovertibly is

As a priest who is an academic, I’m quite deliberate in the terms I use, above all with my students and my peers. I customarily use the expression vetus ordo and novus ordo, which were the descriptives I used in my lecture hall long before Summorum Pontificum evoked different terms. Just so, I always resisted the term du jour ad orientem but would use ad absidem, which more accurately describes my direction when at an altar that is not oriented versus populum – unless I really and veritably am sure that I’m, in fact, facing the orient

I can never think of a time I offered Mass where I actually stopped before hand to take stock of my location on the compass. It was not without significance but the significance was of marginal relevance in the moment. The layout of the sanctuary was what actually dictated where I did what, relative to the liturgy. There are a vast many places where offering Mass facing east is simply not feasible unless you are going to start architecturally from scratch or near scratch

In Europe, there were many occasions where re-orienting the altar of sacrifice was not deemed possible for a variety of reasons. I’ve celebrated Mass over the decades with both orientations – facing the people and not facing the people. I’ve never found the difference to be that remarkable as I have passed from one to the other and back and forth

Personally, I think it would be to the advantage of everyone if both were seen as perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable and perfectly reasonable, which is certainly how it has been in my part of the world; one is not seen as more special than the other & one is not seen as indicative of – or an endorsement of – a particular mindset or ideology. It’s simply the reality of the church’s practical appointments and no one would think of a priest as more traditional or more progressive on that basis

Sacrosanctum Concilium stipulates the four presences of Christ in the Eucharistic synaxis: (1) In the congregation assembled, (2) in the minister that presides, (3) in the Word that is proclaimed, (4) and, substantially, in the consecrated elements that are the Eucharist. That is what is central. The offering to God is what is central. The shape of the altar and how and where it is oriented, whether the congregation is behind the priest, in front of the priest, or 360 degrees surrounding the priest (as is the case with the papal altar at Saint Peter’s Basilica), the language used, and whether the rite by which the Liturgy is offered be of the occidental or the oriental Churches are all of much less significance

The Eucharist is a transcendent reality…whatever direction of the compass I am facing and whatever direction of the compass the people are facing and whether I, as the presider, face them or not

 

[commenter]

1. Like many liturgical changes, a practice that was made an option (facing the congregation) became the universal, defacto mandated norm; not mandated by the Church, but by liturgists.
2. People who demanded the Face the Congregation option claimed it was the only acceptable option after Vatican II, and that anyone who dared resist this change was rejecting Vatican II.
3. Some people who grew up since, with no experience of Ad Orientem, now prefer it after having been exposed to it. There is something else besides nostalgia here. This does not mean they oppose Vatican II.
4. Even those who constantly talk about the “rights of the laity” do not support this right, to at least have it as an option.

 

[exnihilo]

I hope his words are heeded. At the very least, this will prevent some priests I know from doing their “talk show host” routine…

Amen! The practical benefits alone make it worth it.

If only this man were Pope…

Sometimes it is better to have the man pushing for change not be the leader. He can push hard for the change and the leader can smooth over any resulting complaints. You see this in other organizations including in sports. The assistant coaches can be the tough guys who make you work hard and the head coach is the nice guy who makes you feel good about the organization.

 

[JimmyG88]

It’s a tradition shared by Muslims and Jews. All three traditions seem to have morphed the practice of facing in a particular direction into a practice linked to their own beliefs (facing Mecca or Jerusalem or the direction of the Second Coming) although given its Abramamic root, its origins are probably lost in the mists of time

 

[OraLabora]

The East has a deep symbolism and significance for us as Christians. This goes back to our earliest days. The rising sun, each morning, speaks to us of the Second Coming of Christ who, when He appears in majesty, will traverse the sky from the East to the West

That being true, we don’t have the sort of orientation to our theology of prayer that marks, for example, Islam and turning toward Mecca

…

Sacrosanctum Concilium stipulates the four presences of Christ in the Eucharistic synaxis: (1) In the congregation assembled, (2) in the minister that presides, (3) in the Word that is proclaimed, (4) and, substantially, in the consecrated elements that are the Eucharist. That is what is central. The offering to God is what is central. The shape of the altar and how and where it is oriented, whether the congregation is behind the priest, in front of the priest, or 360 degrees surrounding the priest (as is the case with the papal altar at Saint Peter’s Basilica), the language used, and whether the rite by which the Liturgy is offered be of the occidental or the oriental Churches are all of much less significance

The Eucharist is a transcendent reality…whatever direction of the compass I am facing and whatever direction of the compass the people are facing and whether I, as the presider, face them or not

:thumbs:

(sorry had to snip out some text to make it fit the 6000 word max!)

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is one of those areas where people in an office see things one way and people on “the streets” see it another.
The Cardinal is correct that facing East is a rich theological and traditional liturgical action. The problem is, in the USA at least, is that people like and prefer the current “norm” of the priest facing the people. Even when the history and theology is explained to people, they still say, “yeah, but I like this way better.” If I was to adopt this liturgical practice I would immediately start to lose parishioners to nearby parishes, as would most priests who start this practice in isolation from other parishes.
If I was writing a theology paper on the matter I’d side with the Cardinal, if I was being practical about what most parishioners in my neck of the woods would prefer I’d make another choice.
People come to Mass to spill their pains and joys upon the altar of Christ, the last thing they want to deal with is liturgical experimentation even when its a legitimate option.

 

[edwest2]

This is one of those areas where people in an office see things one way and people on “the streets” see it another.
The Cardinal is correct that facing East is a rich theological and traditional liturgical action. The problem is, in the USA at least, is that people like and prefer the current “norm” of the priest facing the people. Even when the history and theology is explained to people, they still say, “yeah, but I like this way better.” If I was to adopt this liturgical practice I would immediately start to lose parishioners to nearby parishes, as would most priests who start this practice in isolation from other parishes.
If I was writing a theology paper on the matter I’d side with the Cardinal, if I was being practical about what most parishioners in my neck of the woods would prefer I’d make another choice.
People come to Mass to spill their pains and joys upon the altar of Christ, the last thing they want to deal with is liturgical experimentation even when its a legitimate option.

I was there before and after Vatican II. When a new, smaller altar appeared and the priest faced the people, I didn’t love God less. I was being obedient to Holy Mother Church. We had Religion class and the nuns explained it to us.

Pope Benedict:

"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

 

[baliano]

This is one of those areas where people in an office see things one way and people on “the streets” see it another.
The Cardinal is correct that facing East is a rich theological and traditional liturgical action. The problem is, in the USA at least, is that people like and prefer the current “norm” of the priest facing the people. Even when the history and theology is explained to people, they still say, “yeah, but I like this way better.” If I was to adopt this liturgical practice I would immediately start to lose parishioners to nearby parishes, as would most priests who start this practice in isolation from other parishes.
If I was writing a theology paper on the matter I’d side with the Cardinal, if I was being practical about what most parishioners in my neck of the woods would prefer I’d make another choice.
People come to Mass to spill their pains and joys upon the altar of Christ, the last thing they want to deal with is liturgical experimentation even when its a legitimate option.

Since when does the Laity decide Church policy? I firmly agree that the celebrant and the congregation should all face toward God, usually in the form of a crucifix, at the least after the Liturgy of the Word and until the Ablution. Mass is not about us, it’s a solemn representation of a sacrifice made to save us.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Since when does the Laity decide Church policy? I firmly agree that the celebrant and the congregation should all face toward God, usually in the form of a crucifix, at the least after the Liturgy of the Word and until the Ablution. Mass is not about us, it’s a solemn representation of a sacrifice made to save us.

Mass isn’t about us, but it is “FOR US.”

Jim

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I was there before and after Vatican II. When a new, smaller altar appeared and the priest faced the people, I didn’t love God less. I was being obedient to Holy Mother Church. We had Religion class and the nuns explained it to us.

Different world, different culture. Second of all, every parish did it so it wasn’t as if the people could just go down the street to another parish.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Since when does the Laity decide Church policy? I firmly agree that the celebrant and the congregation should all face toward God, usually in the form of a crucifix, at the least after the Liturgy of the Word and until the Ablution. Mass is not about us, it’s a solemn representation of a sacrifice made to save us.

Historically the laity have been the driving force behind most things in the church, look up how the Papal Conclave started. And in today’s world they will vote with their feet, they will simply go to another parish…

 

[twf]

And Pope Benedict faced everybody…

Out of pastoral consideration. He wrote STRONGLY in favor of the Ad Orientem posture as the theologian Joseph Ratzinger (as Cardinal Sarah, who is of the same cloth, argues now). That being said, Pope Benedict DID celebrate Mass Ad Orientem (facing the Lord with the congregation) a number of times - especially in the Sistine Chapel.

 

[twf]

What about the Eastern Catholic Churches, and Eastern Orthodox? Are they close to what Cardinal Sarah is proposing? I don’t think Cardinal Sarah is saying the priest should never face the people, it seems he should face the people for certain portions, and “ad orientem” for others, similar to the C. S. Lewis quote, about what would have been an Anglican service several decades ago. By the way, how do Anglicans handle this today?

If you suggest to our Eastern Brethren that their priests should face the people when offering the holy sacrifice, they will collapse with laughter…the idea would beyond ludicrous from an Eastern mindset. (As it was from a Latin mindset until a few decades ago).
Of course the priest does face us at certain points during the liturgy in any tradition…when he is speaking to US on God’s behalf…but he turns towards the Lord when he speaks to the Lord on our behalf. Facing the people while offering a sacrifice on our behalf to the Lord is just beyond the realm of common sense.

 

[twf]

An OF facing east (ad orientem)? Good luck with that.

I’ve seen it more than once, even locally here in Vancouver. Pope Benedict celebrated such masses on more than one occasion. Even Pope Francis celebrated the OF Mass ad orientem at least once - on the tomb of Pope St. John Paul II.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Out of pastoral consideration. He wrote STRONGLY in favor of the Ad Orientem posture as the theologian Joseph Ratzinger (as Cardinal Sarah, who is of the same cloth, argues now). That being said, Pope Benedict DID celebrate Mass Ad Orientem (facing the Lord with the congregation) a number of times - especially in the Sistine Chapel.

The construction of the Sistine Chapel prohibits a free standing altar, as specified in Vatican II, so Pope Benedict XVI and others had no choice but to celebrate the Mass AD Orientem there.

Other places, they celebrated facing the people, especially at Youth Day celebrations.

Jim

 

[twf]

This is one of those areas where people in an office see things one way and people on “the streets” see it another.
The Cardinal is correct that facing East is a rich theological and traditional liturgical action. The problem is, in the USA at least, is that people like and prefer the current “norm” of the priest facing the people. Even when the history and theology is explained to people, they still say, “yeah, but I like this way better.” If I was to adopt this liturgical practice I would immediately start to lose parishioners to nearby parishes, as would most priests who start this practice in isolation from other parishes.
If I was writing a theology paper on the matter I’d side with the Cardinal, if I was being practical about what most parishioners in my neck of the woods would prefer I’d make another choice.
People come to Mass to spill their pains and joys upon the altar of Christ, the last thing they want to deal with is liturgical experimentation even when its a legitimate option.

Father,
You’re probably right. The tragic irony is that it wasn’t the laity who pushed for the change all those decades ago. As I understand it, the change was pushed upon the laity by priests in the 60s and 70s…and people have simply come to expect it.
I find that in many cases assumptions are made. I know of a local parish where guitars and drums and contemporary Protestant ‘praise and worship’ music is used at mass…yet the moment Benediction is celebrated its all Latin and incense and the people just soak it up. Do they really want the “praise and worship” music or do those in power assume that they do? When I look around I don’t see anyone singing along with the choir…they’re as tight lipped as they are when its Latin polyphony…so what’s the advantage? (Different topic I know - but just by way of analogy).

 

[JimmyG88]

Father,
You’re probably right. The tragic irony is that it wasn’t the laity who pushed for the change all those decades ago. As I understand it, the change was pushed upon the laity by priests in the 60s and 70s…and people have simply come to expect it.
I find that in many cases assumptions are made. I know of a local parish where guitars and drums and contemporary Protestant ‘praise and worship’ music is used at mass…yet the moment Benediction is celebrated its all Latin and incense and the people just soak it up. Do they really want the “praise and worship” music or do those in power assume that they do? When I look around I don’t see anyone singing along with the choir…they’re as tight lipped as they are when its Latin polyphony…so what’s the advantage? (Different topic I know - but just by way of analogy).

You’re dead right there. I don’t know a a Catholic who doesn’t love Benediction. I was recently at Mass on a Holy Thursday in Spain and at the end when we sing the Benediction hymns it was sung by residents and tourists with gusto. However this badly written ‘praise music’ seems to be to be an opportunity for show offs to raise their hands in faux ecstasy or dance round a bit to entertain themselves. Church music is designed to praise God not amuse ourselves. If it’s inspirational then great. I’m not a person who demands the return of the Latin Mass. However the music is part of my culture and I resent it being arbitrarily removed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Father,
You’re probably right. The tragic irony is that it wasn’t the laity who pushed for the change all those decades ago. As I understand it, the change was pushed upon the laity by priests in the 60s and 70s…and people have simply come to expect it.
I find that in many cases assumptions are made. I know of a local parish where guitars and drums and contemporary Protestant ‘praise and worship’ music is used at mass…yet the moment Benediction is celebrated its all Latin and incense and the people just soak it up. Do they really want the “praise and worship” music or do those in power assume that they do? When I look around I don’t see anyone singing along with the choir…they’re as tight lipped as they are when its Latin polyphony…so what’s the advantage? (Different topic I know - but just by way of analogy).

It wasn’t pushed, but as Vatican II Document on the Sacred Liturgy stated, the Bishops were given time to experiment in order to implement the call for a Liturgy where the people would have more active participation, to see what worked best and was accepted by the people.

Its how the Mass evolved to where it is today, so the Bishops were not following some left-wing agenda by liberal priests as so often is assumed by some Catholics, but rather, the Bishops paid attention to what was being welcomed or rejected by the parishioners overall.

I grew up with the TLM before Vatican II and experienced the disconnect of the people with the priest and altar boys who said the Mass, pretty much on their own.

Jim

 

[OraLabora]

It wasn’t pushed, but as Vatican II Document on the Sacred Liturgy stated, the Bishops were given time to experiment in order to implement the call for a Liturgy where the people would have more active participation, to see what worked best and was accepted by the people.

The experimentation with versus populum celebration actually began in the 1940s and the Benedictine abbey at Sant’ Anselmo in Rome was given the commission by the Vatican to experiment with it. This abbey is the main Benedictine teaching college.

It’s interesting to note that in the Benedictine world, depending on the configuration of the altar vs the choir and nave, often “ad orientem” for the people was versus populum for the monks. The monks have always had this community dimension where the celebrant would face the community, remembering that the conventual Mass was for the main benefit of the community and not the laity even though the latter are free to attend.

Another point is that in pre-Conciliar days, a conventual church would have many side altars; concelebration wasn’t permitted and a priest-monk was required to celebrate Mass once a day. So several Masses at any given time would be going on at the side altars. They didn’t all face east…