Versus Populum / Ad Orientem

  • Thread starter Thread starter NickyMaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roseeurekacross said:
are we to continually deny the second vatican council and its allowances to masses that people more easily identify with and understand.
Click to expand...
I agree with you in general. However, I do object to one thing. Due to the use of microphones, I don’t think Ad Orientem would take away from the people’s celebration of the mass.

If you watch/ed the Funeral Mass for Mother Angelia, Archbishop Chaput prayed the mass Ad Orientem (which was the only possible way in that Shrine). There were many times when he turned around and faced the people in the pew.

With a microphone, Ad Orientem really isn’t that bad for the laity.

However, the only reason why I personally like Ad Orientem is because it would make it easier for the priest. The priest wouldn’t feel the pressure to “act out” the consecration and priest could place the missal actually in-front of him instead of placing it on the side and reading it with his head turned sideways.

My pastor (who doesn’t like the Latin) once said that the best thing about the old mass was the fact that priests didn’t have to have their head cocked to the side to read and had prayer cards instead of having to turn the pages of a book.

I’ve also heard of a number of seminarians who did not become priests due to becoming distracted when trying to pray facing people. For example: I’ve personally experienced this leading a biblical rosary. When facing the people, I was self conscious and always wanted to make eye contact, and when leading them and facing the same direction, it was much easier. Anyway, I’ve heard stories of good men who have left the seminary due to this, and they have said it would have been much easier for them to read & pray the mass Ad Orientem (NOTE: homilies were not the issue, because there you are supposed to have eye contact and some of the best homilies do not read)

Now, with all that said: I do NOT think that Versus Populum is a bad thing, nor do I believe that switching to Ad Orientem will quickly create a boost in faithfulness or greatly increase vocations. But it might lead to a SLIGHT increase in the number of seminarians who become priests.

God Bless.
 
Maybe people who want to go to an Ad Orientem Mass can go to an EF, and those who want to go to the Versus Polulum Mass can go to the OF.

Problem: SOLVED!
 
Last edited:
Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome… At that time the monkhood came into existence because a few groups were unhappy with the changes of Constantine , in that religion was becoming Rome and worldly, they went off into the desert. They took up chastity.
Click to expand...
Here’s an article you might find interesting:

http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/pre-nicene-monastic-communities.html

This page collects early examples of monks and nuns in the Church, and the majority of the references are from before Constantine’s time. Monks and nuns are mentioned long before Constantine so they didn’t “come into existence” at that time due to being unhappy with his changes.

Here are a few good examples:

160 A.D. - Acts of Paul and Thecla - “At length, certain gentlewomen hearing of the virgin Thecla, went to her, and were instructed by her in the oracles of God, and many of them abandoned this world, and led a monastic life with her.”

200 A.D. - St. Hippolytus of Rome - “[In the last days the] shepherds will be like wolves; the priests will embrace falsehood; [and] the monks will lust after the things of the world.” (Discourse on the End of the World Chapter 7)

250 A.D. - Liturgy of St. Mark - “Remember the orthodox bishops everywhere, the elders, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, singers, monks, virgins, widows, and laity.” (Liturgy of St. Mark, priest’s prayer during the offering of incense)

~271 A.D. - St. Anthony of the Desert’s decision to live a monastic life in the desert is described in his biography by St. Athanasius:

“[T]here were not yet [very] many monasteries in Egypt, and no monk at all knew of the distant desert; but all who wished to give heed to themselves practised the discipline in solitude near their own village. … [Anthony] hurried to the mountain…found a fort, so long deserted that it was full of creeping things…crossed over to it and dwelt there. … [And] it happened in the end that [more] cells arose even in the mountains, and the desert was colonised by monks, who came forth from their own people, and enrolled themselves for the citizenship in the heavens.” (Life of St. Anthony Chapters 3, 12, 14)

Also, Constantine didn’t make Christianity the official religion of Rome, he just made it legal to be a Christian. Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of Rome in 380 A.D.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the book, but is the author asserting that Christ and the “first disciples” didn’t teach advanced doctrine but only ethics? If so, I think that is wrong. The Sermon on the Mount is not the only thing Jesus and the first disciples taught. St. Paul, who wrote the theological treatise that is Romans, could have readily understood the metaphysical jargon in the Nicene Creed; so could the author of Hebrews, who himself uses Greek metaphysical jargon in the first two chapters of his book.
 
Thank you for pointing that out. As I said in that post, I downloaded this book a few days ago, together with two others by the same author, but I haven’t started reading it yet. When I do start, I’ll bear your comment in mind and I’ll see whether Hatch addresses that question. I’ll get back to you in due course, but it’ll take a while!
 
I was in Europe on pilgrimage and let me just say that even if you prefer Versus Populum… the amount of absolute DISRESPECT shown to some of these glorious European altars disgusts me due to all priests using Versus Populum which is, in fact, an option that was made possible during the liturgical reform.

More priests should celebrate ad-orientem. I am not saying to get rid of versus populum… but really… since when is “new” always better?

I can understand versus populum for some of the newer churches… but why use a dinky little altar and have a magnificent piece of art behind you as a backdrop? It’s insulting.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that. Antony is considered the founder of monkhood . He must have been a very interesting man
 
BartholomewB said:
Is this a known historical fact?

My impresssion was that no records had survived from that period that contain any such information. For instance, Justin Martyr’s First Apology is usually cited as the earliest document we have that gives a description of the liturgy of the Mass in the early Church (Chapters 65-67). But I just looked at it again and I can see nothing about which way the priest is facing.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how far back it goes, but I do know that versus populum was done before Vatican II, according to a 1935 French ceremonial that I have. It wasn’t common but it happened.
 
Everyone’s been making very good points. I’ve never experienced the Mass Ad Orientem (as far as I can remember), and it’s something I’d like to be able to do. If Versus Populum had never been introduced, I’d probably be against it, but in all honesty, both forms are good. One form makes the idea of a meal more visible, and the other suggests the Sacrifice in a better way. If only we had enough priests (and structures, and practicing Catholics) to offer Mass both ways in the same parish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top