Desirable ≠ mandatory.So I wonder where does the GIRM allow for the facing east position?
- The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.
No, actually the rubrics simply assume that he might be facing away from the people.If it’s the norm, there doesn’t have to be an “allowance” made in the first place. The rubrics of the 1970 Missal assume that the priest is saying the Mass ad orientem. (He is explicitly instructed by the GIRM to face the people at certain times in the Mass; the only reason for such an instruction would be if he weren’t already facing people. See this thread.)
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in no. 299 of the Instituto Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which, during the Eucharistic liturgy, the position of the priest versus absidem [facing towards the apse] is to be excluded.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:
Negative, and in accordance with the following explanation.
The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account.
It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum [detached from the wall] and to the celebration versus populum [toward the people]. The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc. It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.
However, whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as His instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the Eucharistic Synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is a legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesus Christum [toward God through Jesus Christ], as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned versus Deum [towards God] as its first spiritual movement.
It appears that the ancient tradition, though not without exception, was that the celebrant and the praying community were turned versus orientem [toward the East], the direction from which the Light which is Christ comes. It is not unusual for ancient churches to be “oriented” so that the priest and the people were turned versus orientem during public prayer.
It may be that when there were problems of space, or of some other kind, the apse represented the East symbolically. Today the expression versus orientem often means versus apsidem, and in speaking of versus populum it is not the west but rather the community present that is meant.
In the ancient architecture of churches, the place of the Bishop or the celebrating priest was in the center of the apse where, seated and turned toward the community, the proclamation of the readings was listened to. Now this presidential place was not ascribed to the human person of the bishop or the priest, nor to his intellectual gifts and not even to his personal holiness, but to his role as an instrument of the invisible Pontiff, who is the Lord Jesus.
When it is a question of ancient churches, or of great artistic value, it is appropriate, moreover, to keep in mind civil legislation regarding changes or renovations. Adding another altar may not always be a worthy solution.
There is no need to give excessive importance to elements that have changed throughout the centuries. What always remains is the event celebrated in the liturgy: this is manifested through rites, signs, symbols and words that express various aspects of the mystery without, however, exhausting it, because it transcends them. Taking a rigid position and absolutizing it could become a rejection of some aspect of the truth which merits respect and acceptance.
Vatican City, 25 September 2000.
Great link.The CDWDS has since issued a clarification.
adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html
I couldn’t disagree more. We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ. God is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration. “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there in the room, with us? He might be coming from the East when he returns but he is right there with us now, every time the Mass is said.I do hope for the day where this practice becomes the norm for the Church again.
I fail to see how a new English translation of the Latin Mass will change much, especially after a few months of implementation. There are other cultures, Spanish, Polish, etc. whose translations won’t change, and which could benefit today from the ad orientem posture by the priest.I am hopeful that the implementation of the new Roman Missal coming this advent will help to facilitate this process.
Because it also presents an opportunity for tightening up the liturgy in such a way which can prevent abuses. You are also making an assumption that an ad orientem posture would be beneficial, which I disagree with as I noted above. The Holy See can implement changes in other parts of the world as needed to prevent abuses of the liturgy without too much problem.I fail to see how a new English translation of the Latin Mass will change much, especially after a few months of implementation. There are other cultures, Spanish, Polish, etc. whose translations won’t change, and which could benefit today from the ad orientem posture by the priest.
Is the priest not “the Church” at least as much as those in the congregation? Is the priest not “the Body of Christ” at least as much as those in the congregation? If so, why ought he face in the opposite direction to the people? If one chooses to look at this matter from the point of view of unity in worship, then surely nothing shows this unity better than the whole Body of Christ, the whole Church - priest and people - facing the same direction. The ad orientem celebration of the Holy Mass is, in my humble opinion, a much clearer expression of this unity.I couldn’t disagree more. We the faithful are the body of Christ through our adoption by the Father and we the faithful are the Church of Christ. God is in all of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Confirmation, he is in the Priest who is acting in the person of Christ during the Liturgy, and he is in the Eucharist in the form of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ following the consecration. “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). Why look somewhere else for God, when he is right there in the room, with us? He might be coming from the East when he returns but he is right there with us now, every time the Mass is said.
I admit wholeheartedly that there are far too many liturgical abuses out there. However, that can easily be fixed without altering the nature of the Mass. All the Holy See has to do is to tighten up the instructions for Mass to allow less wiggle room in terms of music, etc. and that will eliminate the vast majority of the problems. We have a tendency in the Western world to throw the baby out with the bath water rather than to make small adjustments to get things on track. I am hopeful that the implementation of the new Roman Missal coming this advent will help to facilitate this process. Our Diocese is mandating standardized music for the first year following its implementation which I think is a good idea.
Actually, the posture of Ad Orientem is proper to the Mass, especially insofar as the Liturgy of the Eucharist is concened. The priest is not, as the mistaken notion seems to regard, “turning his back” to the people; rather, he is leading us in prayer. He is acting as our intercessor, addressing the Father on our behalf.Because it also presents an opportunity for tightening up the liturgy in such a way which can prevent abuses. You are also making an assumption that an ad orientem posture would be beneficial, which I disagree with as I noted above. The Holy See can implement changes in other parts of the world as needed to prevent abuses of the liturgy without too much problem.
You may have a point there. One Christmas Midnight Mass our pastor said the English Mass ad orientem. He got so many complaints about it that he asked himself, “What’s the point?” So the following year he replaced the same Mass with the EF, no worries about what the GIRM requires.You are also making an assumption that an ad orientem posture would be beneficial, which I disagree with as I noted above.
During the Mass, particularly in the consecration, the Priest is acting in the person of Christ Himself. Why would I not want to be focused on Christ? Having said that, I go out of my way to focus on the Eucharist during the whole consecration. I watch to see the manner in which it is being treated, handled with reverence, and the manner in which the Priest, Deacons, and alter servers interact and perform their responsibilities during the Liturgy. But, mostly, I am fixated on the Eucharist. All of this helps me greatly to believe in and celebrate the real presence of Christ in the Body and Blood. When the Priest is facing away from me, I cannot see the Eucharist other than select moments when the celebrant holds it up in the air. Hard to focus on the Eucharist when you can’t see it.Having experienced the Mass celebrated Ad Orientem, I find it quite refreshing. The focus is no longer on the priest, but, on the Mass.
The rubric in the Roman Missal states that the priest shows the Sacred Species after the consecration. Thus, the priest raises the Sacred Host over his head and does the same for the Chalice.During the Mass, particularly in the consecration, the Priest is acting in the person of Christ Himself. Why would I not want to be focused on Christ? Having said that, I go out of my way to focus on the Eucharist during the whole consecration. I watch to see the manner in which it is being treated, handled with reverence, and the manner in which the Priest, Deacons, and alter servers interact and perform their responsibilities during the Liturgy. But, mostly, I am fixated on the Eucharist. All of this helps me greatly to believe in and celebrate the real presence of Christ in the Body and Blood. When the Priest is facing away from me, I cannot see the Eucharist other than select moments when the celebrant holds it up in the air. Hard to focus on the Eucharist when you can’t see it.
I will readily admit there are things would could be improved in the OF of the Mass from the music, abuses, lousy homilies, etc. Heck, I would even be just fine with bringing back alter rails! But the celebrant facing away to me, brings nothing and actually detracts from the liturgy.
And here are other pictures where he is facing the opposite direction. What is your point?The rubric in the Roman Missal states that the priest shows the Sacred Species after the consecration. Thus, the priest raises the Sacred Host over his head and does the same for the Chalice.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_71ZPiLxOVfU/S0uG1p6K5JI/AAAAAAAAEbg/AavhfLP8dOk/s400/10-1-10-13.jpg
This photo was taken when Pope Benedict celebrated Mass in the Sistine Chapel.
What you state here is exactly why I feel so much more connected when the priest is facing in the same direction as I am rather than opposite me.During the Mass, particularly in the consecration, the Priest is acting in the person of Christ Himself. Why would I not want to be focused on Christ? Having said that, I go out of my way to focus on the Eucharist during the whole consecration. I watch to see the manner in which it is being treated, handled with reverence, and the manner in which the Priest, Deacons, and alter servers interact and perform their responsibilities during the Liturgy. But, mostly, I am fixated on the Eucharist. All of this helps me greatly to believe in and celebrate the real presence of Christ in the Body and Blood. When the Priest is facing away from me, I cannot see the Eucharist other than select moments when the celebrant holds it up in the air. Hard to focus on the Eucharist when you can’t see it.
I will readily admit there are things would could be improved in the OF of the Mass from the music, abuses, lousy homilies, etc. Heck, I would even be just fine with bringing back alter rails! But the celebrant facing away to me, brings nothing and actually detracts from the liturgy.