Was the Last Supper Celebrated Ad Orientem?

[walkinginthedesert]

I came across this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy in which he quotes , Father Louis Bouyer’s Liturgy and Architecture (Notre Dame Press, 1967 ) pg. 53-54

“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 left 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.”

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_altareast_jan06.asp

 

[CTBcin]

I’ve always found the argument that “facing the people” comes from the Last Supper to be lacking, at best. I see no connection between the two. One can certainly make good arguments for versus populum, but I’ve never found that to be a good one. Especially since the Last Supper and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are two completely different contexts.

 

[Bonaventurian]

Especially since the Last Supper and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are two completely different contexts.

That’s what those who defend versus populum seem to forget, is the Mass was never intended to just be a reenactment of the Last Supper. At least not until Luther came on the scene and sought to do just that in order to destroy belief in the Real Presence. And today, an argument could be made that the Novus Ordo Missae strips most of the sacrificial elements from the Mass and returns to the banquet format found commonly in Protestant liturgies. Which has lead to a lot of the confusion surrounding ad orientem and versus populum.

 

[BartholomewB]

No, not ad orientem, and not versus populum, but something altogether different from both those arrangements.

Pope Benedict is describing a Roman-style triclinium, three tables placed together like this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

On a formal occasion such as a Passover meal, they were probably reclining on couches rather than sitting on chairs:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Divine3]

Like this definition and great picture.

 

[otjm]

The argument is often made that most of the sacrificial elements have been stripped, but factually that is not sustainable; it is simply the oft repeated mantra of those who vary from disliking the Ordinary Form of the Mass, to outright disdaining it.

 

[otjm]

People are categorically unable to forget that which they were never taught.

Prior to the change in catechetical materials, from the Baltimore Catechism to the post Vatican 2 pablum (which was never envisioned by the bishops at Vatican 2), people were taught the matters you note. After Vatican 2, in an effort to get away from rote memorization, a whole lot of doctrine fell by the wayside. Changing from ad orientem to ad populum did not cause those taught before the introduction of the OF to forget anything, but their children born after Vatican 2 were not taught - and so did not forget what they were not taught.

Specious presumptions in causation make for difficult to impossible conversations.

 

[CTBcin]

The two are most certainly connected. The words of consecration recall the Last Supper. But, the Last Supper occurred within the context of the Jewish Passover, which served as a prefigurement of Christ’s Passion. Passover and the Mass are very different. I’ve always associated the Mass more with Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross than the Last Supper. I like @(name removed by moderator) ‘s explanation.

 

[dochawk]

The very phrasing of this question is a logical problem.

The reason for facing East was and is that it is the direction from which Christ is to return. Presumably, this would have Him facing West . .

For Christ himself to face Himself that way for that reason would make no sense; for aHim to face Himself is a topographical faimpossibility.

 

[tafan2]

But it is the sacrifice of Calvary, it us Jesus’s sacrifice.

 

[tafan2]

No it’s not sustainable, but the argument did not originate with the traditionalists. The liturgical reformers of the 70s and 80s tried their absolute best downplayed the notion of it being a sacrifice, to the point that many Catholics were never taught at all about the mass being a sacrifice.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps I could invite you to review my post again. Having had a tad bit of experience of the Church prior to Vatican 2, I can assure you that we did not get a stream of catechesis from the pulpit concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.

Your contention appears to be that ad populum downplays the sacrificial aspect of the Mass; I disagree with you most strongly. I know that it is a popular opinion within certain groups, and it is just that - a popular opinion.

Do we need catechesis? I couldn’t agree more; but ad populum/ad orientem is not what is needed; what is needed is for the addition, during a homily breaking open the Scriptures, a point of two each week of the vast amount of catechesis long ago abandoned - and it does not have to be quotes from the BC.

The liturgy doesn’t need tweaking. What is needed is for priests and deacons to realize how abysmal catechesis has been, and provide what is needed.

 

[otjm]

I disagree that it was the liturgical reformers who downplayed the sacrificial aspects; it was the catechists. That spread like wildfire as the “new way” of teaching the Faith.

the liturgists were following the directions of the bishops of the world, replacing things which had been removed or lost over time, and removing things which had accreted over time (e.g.g prayers at the foot of the altar, the second confiteor, the Last Gospel).

This is bordering on charges I heard some time ago, that someone who grew up with the EF couldn’t find their way in the OF as it was “so different”. That is pure hogwash - and I was born in 1946, so it is not like I have no experience of both.

I agree many Catholics were never taught that the Mass is a sacrifice; but that is catechesis, not rubrics.

 

[otjm]

I am running as fast as I can’ I help provide adult catechesis (most recently Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist); I havee been woring in RCIA of some 20 years; and I have worked in my parish and two others on Catholics Returning Home.

The problem? Getting people to show up.

And I am aware of both criticisms and prises Pope Beneict has made concerning the Mass; I am also aware of the most significant fact which drove him to remark about the “remnant Church” as he looked at Europe. I am not praising the 22 - 23% of Catholics who attend Mass regularly in the US, having lost about 42 - 45% of them starting in 1957; but much if not most of Europe is somewhere between less than 10% to less than 5%.

Nor do I suggest you are bitter. We disagree about causation.