J
jbelokur
Guest
When did the direction the priest faces from ad orientem to facing the people happen, and why?
- Status
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
When: After the Second Vatican Council with the reforms of the Mass.
Why: Spirit of Vatican II.
Why: Spirit of Vatican II.
J
jbelokur
Guest
Do the VII docs.actually specify yhis change?
M
malphono
Guest
The ad orientem posture was the norm in the Latin Rite and was never abrogated.
It’s interesting that the rubrics of the OF Missal itself presume ad orientem celebration, and even during the “liturgical midnight” of the 1970s and 1980s it was possible (although admittedly not common) to encounter it, particularly in Rome itself. The Latin Rite EF, of course, is always offered ad orientem, and these days, though the numbers are still small, more and more churches are, thankfully, restoring ad orientem celebration even in the OF.
It’s interesting that the rubrics of the OF Missal itself presume ad orientem celebration, and even during the “liturgical midnight” of the 1970s and 1980s it was possible (although admittedly not common) to encounter it, particularly in Rome itself. The Latin Rite EF, of course, is always offered ad orientem, and these days, though the numbers are still small, more and more churches are, thankfully, restoring ad orientem celebration even in the OF.
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
Nope. Vatican II calls for very little of what we are experiencing nowadays. This is why I used the phrase “Spirit of Vatican II.”
R
Robster7
Guest
Oh boy!
Here we go again! Another us v. them/trad.v. V2/we’re right–you’re going to hell/ debates
that run on for 15 pages or more. At least, that is what these questions seem to lead to!
I do not have it in front of me but will quote from it later. In the St Andrew’s Missal from the 1950s, the intro for mass for a certain pope in Nov. or Dec., there is mention of the arrangement of the ancient Roman church dedicated to him. Among other things it mentions, altar facing the people! Does not, however give a date for the church.
Anyway, the point is, the priest facing the people is not just some modernist invention.
Here we go again! Another us v. them/trad.v. V2/we’re right–you’re going to hell/ debates
that run on for 15 pages or more. At least, that is what these questions seem to lead to!
I do not have it in front of me but will quote from it later. In the St Andrew’s Missal from the 1950s, the intro for mass for a certain pope in Nov. or Dec., there is mention of the arrangement of the ancient Roman church dedicated to him. Among other things it mentions, altar facing the people! Does not, however give a date for the church.
Anyway, the point is, the priest facing the people is not just some modernist invention.
C
Cluny
Guest
Actually, there were rubrics in the Latin Missal accomodating the “basilican orientation” (facing the people) before Vatican II.
In fact, at one time this WAS the norm in the West.
Ad orientem seems to have become the practice with the rise of private celebrations at side altars, and then the application of the rubrics of the Missa Privata (a Mass deprived of its ceremonies, i.e., low Mass) being applied to a Missa Solemnis. This complex development took decades, if not centuries.
I’ve seen photos (linked from CAF) taken in the late 40’s-early50’s showing Mass being celebrated this way–years before that nasty old V2.
I’m not saying a word against facing east, but simply the historical truth of the matter.
M
malphono
Guest
Keep in mind that it was only in the great basilicas, and even then the orientation is somewhat questionable. The doors of the basilicae face east, and the altar faces the doors. (The presence of the confesio makes ad orientem a practical problem.) OTOH, the choir stalls (chapter) are behind the altar. Ergo, those in the choir stalls (e.g. the chapter), assist facing liturgical (rather than geographical) east.
And even in the great basilicas, other than the high altar, it’s traditionally ad orientem. The Papal altar in S Peter’s is a good example.
B
Blessed_Karl
Guest
How is the turning into another “us vs them” thread about “the nasty old V2”?
Seriously…there has been no criticism of Vatican II yet!!! It’s the “spirit of Vatican II” mentality that is being criticized! All I have seen are questions to why ad orientem was changed to ad populum.
Seriously…there has been no criticism of Vatican II yet!!! It’s the “spirit of Vatican II” mentality that is being criticized! All I have seen are questions to why ad orientem was changed to ad populum.
C
Cat
Guest
Wait a minute. This sounds like you’re saying, “I like you, but I don’t like your looks or your personality.”
I don’t see the difference.
Here’s what I do see. If all the Catholic churches in which the priest faces the people are doing it “wrong” and have been for all these years, then the Pope and the Magisterium are completely evil to have allowed them to keep doing it wrong.
To phrase it another way, don’t y’all think the Pope and the Magisterium would have stepped in after almost 50 years and said, “Hey, all you churches, you’re doing it wrong! Stop it and start doing it right!”
Or is this one of those threads where posters will claim that the last true pope we had was Pius X and everyone since him is an imposter?
J
jbelokur
Guest
I don’t really think that it is a matter of right wrong, but whether or not we are communicating truth in the most effective manor. And I think that my question is valid. For, if we don’t find in the documents of the Church especially from VII which is where we received the OF mass from, then where did it come from and for what purpose was it changed.
A
AJV
Guest
I think it’s a little hazier than that. See for example, this picture on Pius VI celebrating in Vienna in 1782. As you can see, the high altar has been covered and a secondary one set up. It was kind of assumed that the Pope would face the people sometimes (e.g. Papal Masses) and the idea of ad orientem sidelined.
wien-tourist.info/index.php/Osterfest_Papst_Pius_VI_1782
Ad orientem actually began far earlier than the Council, picking up speed in the late 40’s and throughout the 50’s. It was in the 50’s that the Holy See issued the bulk of documents dealing which the issue, and even notables like Cardinal Ottaviani could be found celebrating that way. It was thought to be more pastoral desirable, giving the people a better view and increased concentration. This was the main reason - the second one, for a long time, was more ‘historical’ - although the flaws in this argument were recognized.
I should note here, though, that it is a debate about the orientation of the altars among those specialized in liturgical study. Many times, people quote certain liturgists or liturgical works to support one side or the other - when actually, a lot of the time, they are hypotheses, and not completely proven. I think the issue is more debated than some realize.
There is a very interesting article in Worship 1959 in which the author attempts to answer historical arguments against versus populum, and adduce further reasons for it:
- giving a “vicarious paternal character”, that emphasizes the distinctness and separability of the sacramental priesthood from the laity
- giving better force to the format of the Mass as a celestial banquet (Banquet-Sacrifice)
- greater pastoral visibility and attention from the people who could also follow the Mass much better.
T
thunderballs75
Guest
My man! You fail to realize that the Popes and Magisterium have failed to step in for a lot of things, including but not limited to: clown Masses, Protestantized “charismatic” Masses, liturgical dancing, pro-abortion honorary degrees, and of course, sexual abuse.
However, just because the Pope makes some mistakes or fails to fix all of them, doesn’t make him any less the Pope, and certainly doesn’t make him “completely evil”. We have to realize that he isn’t a god, but is a human just like all of us! Nobody here is espousing sedevacantism (or at least most aren’t).
Sorry if I am getting off the thread topic. I just think you are making a way bigger deal of the original question than it originally was meant to be. I don’t see how from an honest question such as “When did the direction change?” you get “Is the Pope an evil heretic?”
C
Cat
Guest
I’m a woman.
Thunderballs, you’re a new member. I am an old member and I have seen it happen over and over on these forums. A thread that starts out with a simple question turns into a big thing where people accuse the popes of being pretenders to the throne and those people end up getting suspended or banned while people like me plead with the moderators to please step in and stop the thread so that seekers, new Catholics, and doubtful Catholics don’t get discouraged and lose their trust in the Pope and the Magisterium.
I guess one of my questions is this: how long has the OP been away from Mass? And along with that, why didn’t he ask the priest in his parish this question?
It is my understanding (I’m a convert) that after Vatican II, when the “vernacular Mass” was established and became the “OF” or Ordinary Form, that the priest turned around and faced the people so that they could HEAR him speak in their own heart language. I personally like it. I like to be able to hear, and unfortunately, most Catholic churches that I have been in do NOT have a state-of-the-art sound system.
A
Among_Strangers
Guest
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:
W
weepixie71
Guest
ok ok ok… someone comes to a traditional catholic forum website and asks a question they are going to get a traditional catholic opinion. PERIOD. it is no secret that traditional catholics do not care much for what vatican II has done to Christ’s Church. even the pope acknowledges this and hence “moto proprio”. we do not get up early enough to wake a rooster to get our families dressed and out the door, drive an hour to mass because we are just a litte disconcerted about what is taking place in the novus ordo.
cluny the period that you are describing also was the start of the push of the modernism in the church and already much talk of a new mass. i believe that priests were testing the waters to see what reaction people would give. this just makes sense. perhaps the fact that someone took pictures of the event proves that is was very much planned. i know i dont take a camera to church unless it is a special occasion, like a first communion.
facing the congregation was NOT a normal practice till vatican II. so why take offense to it being said "one of the many (and continuing changes) of vatican II.
cluny the period that you are describing also was the start of the push of the modernism in the church and already much talk of a new mass. i believe that priests were testing the waters to see what reaction people would give. this just makes sense. perhaps the fact that someone took pictures of the event proves that is was very much planned. i know i dont take a camera to church unless it is a special occasion, like a first communion.
facing the congregation was NOT a normal practice till vatican II. so why take offense to it being said "one of the many (and continuing changes) of vatican II.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Once again it would seem that a trademark of “traditionalist” Catholics is a penchant for conspiracy theories…
W
weepixie71
Guest
actually i think what i am stating is human nature. when the world around you starts to go chaotic around you it is comforting to stick to what you know especially when it comes to your religion. this is not conspiracy it is common sense.Once again it would seem that a trademark of “traditionalist” Catholics is a penchant for conspiracy theories…
C
Cluny
Guest
Because the statement simply is NOT true to attribute it to V2.
Before we go any farther, I attend the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which has always used a free-standing altar and the Priest facing eastward (except for the Epistle and Gospel).
There is only one place where this Liturgy is celebrated en face: in the Chapel of the Anastasis (Resurrection) of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
- Status