Versus Populum in Eastern Catholic liturgies

[Ad_Orientem]

Which Eastern Catholic liturgies today (if any) typically, or even occasionally, celebrate the liturgy versus populum? When did this start? 20th c.? 21st c.? I’m assuming that the majority of Eastern Catholics still worship ad orientem?

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

I can only speak for my own experience.

The Syriacs, Maronites, Chaldeans and Syro-Malabar all celebrate Liturgies Versus Populum quite regularly and is the norm. However there are a few places where ad oreintum is the norm. For eg: certain villages in North Lebanon around Wady el Qidisien (Maronite), Qarqosh in Iraq (Syriac) and the USA (Chaldean).

I have seen the Melkites do it as well but it’s certainly not the norm.

I have never seen the Ukranians and Syro-Malankaras celebrate Liturgies Versus Populum.

The versus populum began in the Post-V2 era.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. Only in Qaraqosh? That’s interesting that it would be preserved in one particular stronghold, but not elsewhere.

 

[Filioque]

The Coptic Catholic Church in Los Angeles is versus populum and has added the bidding prayers. As well as female lectors, which I have not seen elsewhere in Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches. There are so few Coptic Catholics I can’t say if it is common among the Rite.

 

[ProVobis]

Just as a point of translation, versus means “having turned” as in toward the people, not “facing the people.” The ICEL did the biased translation, in opposition to ad orientem.

ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/08/22/14-18-44_0.pdf

 

[malphono]

Which Eastern Catholic liturgies today (if any) typically, or even occasionally, celebrate the liturgy versus populum? When did this start? 20th c.? 21st c.? I’m assuming that the majority of Eastern Catholics still worship ad orientem?

If I may, I’ll add a few things to what [post=11373311]shlomo3amrooh[/post] has already said.

The Maronites in the US jumped in the versus populum table bandwagon in the late 1960s, and this is perhaps the first, and most obvious, of the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations to have infected out Church. It has been standard in this country ever since, but there have ever been a small handful of exceptions. The trend took hold later – and more gradually – in the Patriarchal territories and elsewhere in the diaspora, but again, it has, most unfortunately, become the norm. IOW, for the Maronites, the correct ad orientem posture remains the exception.

IIRC, the SCC started this versus populum table silliness rather later, that being sometime in the mid to late 1980s. Here again, while it’s not ubiquitous it has unfortunately become more and more the norm. From what I understand, this is also true of the Copts and the Ethiopians. I’ve heard the same about the Armenians, but I’ve no experience with that, even by way of video or broadcast.

The Chaldeans seem to be more of a mixed bag, since most went (and remain) versus populum but some held fast to ad orientem or have returned to it. And not only in the western US. For example, I believe that the Mar Youhannan Zora in Canada has retained or reverted to the proper ad orientem posture.

The Syro-Malabars are an interesting case, though: in the immediate post-conciliar era, they too, mostly jumped on the versus populum bandwagon, although I believe at least the Archdiocese of Chanangassery did not. Lately, though under the guidance of Mar George Allenchery, himself from Chanangassery, they seem to be steadily reverting to ad orientem.

Although the Melkites are known to use versus populum (and forgo even a portable iconostasis) at times and in some places, they mostly retain ad orientem. The latter is true for the Byzantines in general.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sadly, There are Syriac Orthodox who strangely mimic this versus populum orientation in some places - Latin America, Philippines, etc.

 

[Thomas48]

Let me add a correction that in todays most revised form of the Syro Malabar Holy Qurbana, we celebrate in a mix of both Versus Populum and Ad Oreintem. In the commom structure of our sanctuaries we have two tables, the Bema and the Madhbaha (or the altar). When the Qurbana starts the vicar begins at the Bema in versus populum, where the introduction prayers and the Liturgy of the Word is recited. After this, the vicar climbs the steps to the altar, bows, kisses it thrice, and recites the rest of the Qurbana in Ad Orientem. This revision has been made in every diocese of the Syro Malabar Church.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Wow, I had no idea it had become such a widespread practice in the Eastern rites. Why? Did you guys undergo changes to your respective liturgies akin to the Novus Ordo after the Council, or did you just adopt certain practices adopted by the Latin Church, or…? Does the “latinization” signify allegiance to / unity with Rome?

I point out, however, that “versus populum” (for lack of a better term – I know it’s ambiguous) is not a latinization so much as a modernization. The historical orientation of the Roman rite is ad orientem. Though of course the modern practice is approved and totally licit.

 

[malphono]

Wow, I had no idea it had become such a widespread practice in the Eastern rites. Why? Did you guys undergo changes to your respective liturgies akin to the Novus Ordo after the Council, or did you just adopt certain practices adopted by the Latin Church, or…?

Unfortunately, I suppose the only answer is both.
Ad Orientem;11374911:

Does the “latinization” signify allegiance to / unity with Rome?

No, It signifies the Latin mindset that has been instilled.

I point out, however, that "versus populum

" (for lack of a better term – I know it’s ambiguous) is not a latinization so much as a modernization. The historical orientation of the Roman rite is ad orientem. Though of course the modern practice is approved and totally licit.

Yes, and that’s precisely why I use the expression Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Let me add a correction that in todays most revised form of the Syro Malabar Holy Qurbana, we celebrate in a mix of both Versus Populum and Ad Oreintem. In the commom structure of our sanctuaries we have two tables, the Bema and the Madhbaha (or the altar). When the Qurbana starts the vicar begins at the Bema in versus populum, where the introduction prayers and the Liturgy of the Word is recited. After this, the vicar climbs the steps to the altar, bows, kisses it thrice, and recites the rest of the Qurbana in Ad Orientem. This revision has been made in every diocese of the Syro Malabar Church.

Thomas, while this is true on paper, how is it in practice? Outside the “proper jurisdiction” of the Church, it is a total mixed bag at best, totally novus ordo-ized at worst. See the inconsistencies at ShalomTv, you never know what their broadcast will show.

 

[dzheremi]

Sadly, There are Syriac Orthodox who strangely mimic this versus populum orientation in some places - Latin America, Philippines, etc.

The communities in these places are new, no? I have heard that in Guatemala, for instance, while they’ve gotten their own Bishop (Mor Edward), they still haven’t finished a suitable translation of the liturgy into Spanish, so they are still using whatever weird sort-of-RC-but-not liturgy that they used when were still a charismatic whatever community. It is unfortunately in these newest places, where people are most unsure in the Orthodox faith, that you find these kinds of unacceptable irregularities, since sometimes the knowledge just isn’t there yet among the local people to know how to do it right due to lack of materials or people to teach (e.g., apparently in the one Coptic Orthodox Church in Malaysia, nobody sings the liturgy because they don’t know the tunes…that must be weird!), or sometimes even the bishops who preside over those places allow things that wouldn’t be allowed elsewhere in a misguided attempt at ‘inculturation’ (I’m not going to name any names, but this is a common criticism of the missionary churches in East and southern Africa, and also certain regions of North America).

So perhaps there’s an idea, either from the people or the bishops or both, that since these people already know the RC ways, being former RCs, it is easier for the time being that they keep their previous orientation while adapting to the Syriac liturgy? I dunno…or maybe people are just ignorant and certain bishops or priests should be replaced. Either way, Lord have mercy. It is strange that there are some places where Oriental Orthodox is really exploding and they have not had these sorts of problems (e.g., Bolivia), but some other places where things are definitely not ‘up to code’, so to speak (e.g., certain areas of Latin America, Africa, and North America). May God guide the Orthodox Church through it’s growing pains in these new lands, including North America.

 

[Thomas48]

Thomas, while this is true on paper, how is it in practice? Outside the “proper jurisdiction” of the Church, it is a total mixed bag at best, totally novus ordo-ized at worst. See the inconsistencies at ShalomTv, you never know what their broadcast will show.

Thats a good question, yes the official mandate is that all the diocese must follow the revision, if all of them have instituded them, I do not know. Its been ages since I’ve visited the majority of the Syro Malabar Diocese but from my knowledge, I know for sure that the Chicago Diocese, Kottayam Diocese, and I beleive by the will of Mar George Alencherry even Angamali uses the revised form (tho I’m sure theres much disent). The other diocese’, Trichur, Changanacherry, and Tellicherry, I am not sure.

For reasons I know not, some Syro Malabar patrons support Latinization and this causes much disent in our diocese (especially Angamli). I can venture tho that it may be because its just what they’re used to, centuries of Latinizations are hard to brush off.

 

[Nestor_kea]

Some people have written about Melkites ad popolum. In Central Europe I have never seen Greek Catholics (it is Slavic branch of rite, not Arabic one) ad populum, only in their “normal” way. Some parts of liturgy, for example readings are facing people, but in this in the same manner as Orthodoxes do and I do not consider it ad populum.

I think that not only latinization, often more precisely selflatinisation is the only point. There is also modernisation (that can have nothing to do with latinization). In Roman Rite (I don’t know how Ambrosians or Bragans do) I can appreciate ad orientam but I feel ad populum to be much better and enjoyable. And if other sui iurises see that it is working and may be better accepted, why not to move to a new form? Today’s centuries old traditions had been new at their young times and practices are moving on, so what? If it is organical development / life / changes to liturgical practices, then I think it is OK.
And if there are different preferenciex within churches, having two forms seems to me as a quite usable solution. Or the mixed form, why not? Or all three ones.

I would also think that before ad orientam churches – in the West as well as in the East, or at least “primitive church” – were eclesias = communities with faithful+priest around the table all facing this table. If so, then ad orientam is just another modernization and why should by this modernization OK?

Yes, and there are local differences. To have different “look out’s” in India, Latin Amerika, Russia, Afrika… is considered to be normal and let us say pretty, so why should be Syriac liturgy same everywhere in the world? Roman Rite can differ a lot in Afrika, Europe…

I find some modernizations good (and some bad) and ad populum is for me better and so I think this “possitive” development in other rites is possitive (if becoming in a possitive way).

I feel female lectors and ministers to be very possitive and needed. I think we should have human lectors and so on, not male or female and state with only male ministers I consider to be bad so I must agree with female altar servants and give big OK to it. And if slowly appearing in the East, then also good.
BTW, I have seen photos with altar girls at Chaldean Patriarchal liturgy, probably in the USA but some seemed to be also “at home”.

 

[Aramis]

It’s worth noting that in a byzantine liturgy, if you have enough concelebrants with separate pattons and chalices, some of them will be vs populem; the primary celebrant will not be.

 

[ProVobis]

I point out, however, that “versus populum” (for lack of a better term – I know it’s ambiguous) is not a latinization so much as a modernization. The historical orientation of the Roman rite is ad orientem. Though of course the modern practice is approved and totally licit.

To some extent. Adversus populum or even ad populum would be the more appropriate term IMO for “facing the people.” But the rubrics specify versus which means more of “having turned,” implying that that wasn’t the original posture. Conversus is also used for this purpose, except perhaps to emphasize the “turning,” especially collectively towards a goal.

Why does this matter? Because the instructions are in Latin and some have proposed that “facing the people” was an intentional mistranslation to fit someone’s agenda.