What's pastoral about Versus Populum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMortenBay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheMortenBay

Guest
So, I am pretty much a traditionalist myself and I vastly prefer the Tridentine Mass to the Mass of Paul VI. But putting that personal bias aside for a moment, I totally get the “pastoral” argument when it comes to using the vernacular when celebrating the Mass.
But when it comes to the Ad Orientem vs Versus Populum discussion I fail to see the pastoral effect of having the priest face the congregation. I was hoping for some nuance on this topic. What do you good folks get out of the priest facing you? From some members who have been around to see the change from Ad Orientem to Versus Populum. How did the change make you feel, if you can recall?
 
When it was first being promoted in the 20th century, many liturgical reformers promoted an emphasis on unity in corporate worship–everyone was supposed to be uniformly focused as one body on what was happening on the altar. This meant getting rid of side altars, ornate reredos, statues, and even the reserved Sacrament–and also turning the priest around so everyone could see and focus on the sacrifice on the altar itself.

Of course, as the liturgical reform lost focus, different, often contradictory movements of reform were all thrust together, experimented with, etc. and so the changes often acquired different meanings. For example, the priest turning around is more often associated now the priest engaging with the people more, which is directly contrary to the original purpose it was given earlier on–it can often be a distraction for the unity of focus on the altar (granted, given the concurrent simplification of the rite itself, there is a lot less “going on” at the altar itself anyway).
 
Last edited:
I wasn’t around in the ad orientem days, but I would venture to guess that most people like to be able to see what’s going on. Seeing the priest’s back, which is hiding what he is doing at the altar, is different from what people experience when they go to any other sort of public event.
 
I’ve been to both - and still go to both occasionally, as we have the Ordinary Form available here both ways. It doesn’t seem to matter much. My issue is being able to hear when the priest is facing away from me. There’s also a notable difference (although I admit, it should be an internal disposition) as to whether the action of the Mass is his or ours depending upon the direction he’s facing, and there are good theological and pastoral arguments on both sides of that discussion.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
There’s also a notable difference (although I admit, it should be an internal disposition) as to whether the action of the Mass is his or ours depending upon the direction
Click to expand...
The priest celebrates the Mass and we can participate by praying the Mass, right? But I’d argue that Ad Orientem gives me a greater unity with the priest. Granted, at low mass I’m basically looking over the priests shoulder sometimes.
What would you argue was more his or our sacrifice of the two?
 
TheMortenBay said:
What would you argue was more his or our sacrifice of the two?
Click to expand...
I agree with you that ad orientem gives greater unity. To me, it makes it more an “our”. Even as a kid, when my father told me Mass had been in Latin and the priest faced the other way, while getting rid of Latin seemed obvious (not anymore), the priest facing the same way as us seemed much more natural.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Ad orientem definitely feels more like “his” than “ours”, and that’s very powerful in a good way. However, I’d never reduce our faith to a simple definition; it’s layered and nuanced. That’s why I appreciate the many forms and options we have for Mass and worship. There are certainly things reserved and appropriate to the priest alone, but we’re not mere participants or spectators. We have a sacrifice to actively offer as well, that of our prayer and our very lives. After all, Mass is both/and sacrifice/communal meal.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
Mass is both/and sacrifice/communal meal.
Click to expand...
In my understanding Mass is mostly/ but also sacrifice/ communal meal. There’s something about “communal meal” that makes my heresy bell go off…
Maybe it’s… A sacrifice with some outward properties of the Last Supper? 🤔
 
Sounds like lacking catechesis to me, if you’re hearing heresy bells there.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
Sounds like lacking catechesis to me, if you’re hearing heresy bells there.
Click to expand...
What I meant is that I’m certain there is a heresy that’s defined by considering the Mass as a meal. It may just be if you only consider it a meal or perhaps primarily.
 
Fair enough. For clarity on my point, refer to the Catechism # 1382 (emphasis mine):

“1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.”
 
Honestly… I THINK it originally had more to do with volume than anything else.

Microphones used to not be allowed, even for the homily. It wasn’t until around the time of John XXIII that the microphone was allowed to be used for the homily.

It’s funny, before Paul VI was made a Cardinal by John XXIII, one of the marks against making him as a bishop was that he wasn’t loud enough during his homilies. John XXIII ignored that when making him a Cardinal because they were now allowed to use microphones for the homily.

The vernacular masses and spoken allowed prayer were something that started in some parts before the new mass was created (esp in Germany).

So if the priest was going to pray the canon of the mass so everyone could hear him (without a microphone) it was best that the priest faced the people so his voice could carry.

So honestly - I think that’s the real reason. From there, all the other reasons are ones people use why not to change it back now that priests use microphones for the whole mass.

God bless
 
Last edited:
Here’s the Council of Trent Catechism. I thought I remembered a “let him be anathema” 😂
“If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Dz 948.).
Click to expand...
 
On a couple occasion I have been in a small group when. The priest invited everyone to heather around the alter. Up close. It really had the fell of being at a banquet. Like the Passover meal and the last supper.
The priest is actually the host at a great banquet.
 
po18guy said:
We worry way too much.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of my worries stem from a (sometimes irrational) fear that a priest doesn’t worry enough. On the other hand I have complete faith in our priests. ❤️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top