Ad orientam v. Versus populum

[Resurrexi]

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GK9vk5xxaSs/R-AX5WyV8GI/AAAAAAAABtQ/MqiT2i-s1Bg/s1600/Pope%2BBenedict%2BXVI%2BBaptism%2Bof%2Bthe%2BLord.jpg[/img]

[Skinzo]

The discussion here seems to ignore #299 of the GIRM which states:
"299. 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, [b]which is desirable wherever possible[/b]"

Thus it seems the GIRM does state a preference for facing the people.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.shtml

S.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Skinzo

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='26 April 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1272317469' post='2100593']
The discussion here seems to ignore #299 of the GIRM which states:
"299. 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, [b]which is desirable wherever possible[/b]"

Thus it seems the GIRM does state a preference for facing the people.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.shtml

S.
[/quote]
The phrase "which is desirable wherever possible" refers back to the idea that the altar should be "built apart from the wall," and does not concern the possibility of facing the people - a practice that is contrary to Apostolic Tradition - during the Eucharistic anaphora.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='26 April 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1272317469' post='2100593']
The discussion here seems to ignore #299 of the GIRM which states:
"299. 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, [b]which is desirable wherever possible[/b]"

Thus it seems the GIRM does state a preference for facing the people.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.shtml

S.
[/quote]
See Uwe Michael Lang's book, [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=r9GLP8GMixEC&pg=PA25&dq=Let+the+main+altar+be+constructed+separate+from+the+wall+so+that+one+can+easily+walk+around+the+altar&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Let%20the%20main%20altar%20be%20constructed%20separate%20from%20the%20wall%20so%20that%20one%20can%20easily%20walk%20around%20the%20altar&f=false"]Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer[/url], page 25-26.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='26 April 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1272320942' post='2100611']
See Uwe Michael Lang's book, [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=r9GLP8GMixEC&pg=PA25&dq=Let+the+main+altar+be+constructed+separate+from+the+wall+so+that+one+can+easily+walk+around+the+altar&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Let%20the%20main%20altar%20be%20constructed%20separate%20from%20the%20wall%20so%20that%20one%20can%20easily%20walk%20around%20the%20altar&f=false"]Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer[/url], page 25-26.
[/quote]

Almost. Except that the CDW's response opens the door again to a preference for the "versus populum" position by saying on p.26 of the link you cite:
" [font="Times New Roman, Times, Arial"][size="3"][b]It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier[/b] (Cf. the editorial in [i]Notitiae [/i]29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.".
Thus, we are left with a clarification which allows for Mass to be celebrated either way, but still indicates a preference for the position of "versus populum"

S.
[/size][/font]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='26 April 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1272334273' post='2100719']
Almost. Except that the CDW's response opens the door again to a preference for the "versus populum" position by saying on p.26 of the link you cite:
" [font="Times New Roman, Times, Arial"][size="3"][b]It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier[/b] (Cf. the editorial in [i]Notitiae [/i]29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.".
Thus, we are left with a clarification which allows for Mass to be celebrated either way, but still indicates a preference for the position of "versus populum"

S.
[/size][/font]
[/quote]
I never denied that the Roman Rite has broken with Apostolic Tradition on this point by allowing an innovation in the manner of celebration. I simply pointed out that your interpretation of the GIRM (no. 299) was incorrect.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='26 April 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1272335516' post='2100727']
I never denied that the Roman Rite has broken with Apostolic Tradition on this point by allowing an innovation in the manner of celebration. I simply pointed out that your interpretation of the GIRM (no. 299) was incorrect.
[/quote]

Fair enough. But I think the real problem is that the translation of no. 299 is what is inaccurate.

S.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='26 April 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1272317469' post='2100593']
Thus it seems the GIRM does state a preference for facing the people.
[/quote]

You are completely incorrect. You may want to read this [url="http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009_08_01_archive.html"]explanation[/url] (written by Gero P. Weishaupt, J.C.D.) on the legal status of ad orientem within the Novus Ordo.

Celebration Versus Deum Still Applicable Law

The celebration "versus Deum" is - together with Communion in the mouth and the Latin language of worship - not the subject of the "reform of the reform" of the liturgy desired by Pope Benedict XVI, but the implementation of the applicable law. At issue here is the correction of a misguided development after the Second Vatican Council.

Second Vatican Council

Is well known that the Second Vatican Council has made no pronouncement on the direction of celebration. Nor does the constitution on the liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium prescribe anything about the construction of new altars. The first non-conciliar document, which says something about this, is the instruction Inter Oecumenici of 26 September 1964, which with its norms claims to be a concrete execution of the constitution on the liturgy. The text of the instruction shall here first be given in Latin, and then in [an English] translation:

The Instruction Inter Oecumenici

Præstat ut altare maius extruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit..."(Sacra Congregatio Rituum [1964] 898, Nr. 91).

"It is better that the main altar is built detached from the wall, in order that one can easily walk around it and celebration versus populum can take place on it."

The main statement of the text is the separation of the altar from the rear wall (a pariete seiunctum).

Two things are striking in this sentence:

1. only a recommendation is made with respect to the separation of the altar from the rear wall (præstat = it is better, it is desirable)

2. only a possibility of the celebration versus populum is mentioned as the purpose of separating the altar from the rear wall (ut ... possit = in order that ... one can). In this case, the ut is interpreted as a final "ut" (in order that). Grammatically, however, a consecutive interpretation is also possible: ut = so that. Then one would have to translate as follows:

"It is better that the main altar is built detached from the wall, so that one can easily walk around it and celebration versus populum can take place on it."

If one therefore takes the ut as consecutive, the walking around and the celebration would be a consequence of the separation of the altar. Through this change in the causal logic of the statements, the reference to the celebration (sc. versus populum) would be further weakened. What matters to the legislator is the possibility of detaching the altar from the rear wall, not the celebration versus populum. The latter remains a minor aside.

Whatever the case, the instruction of 1964 speaks only to the possibility of celebration towards the people. It is therefore on no account a prescription. In other words: the celebration versus populum is allowed by Inter Oecumenici, but not prescribed.

The Missal of Paul VI. (so-called "ordinary use of the Roman Rite")

Thus it is only consistent that the rubrics of the Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI. ("Novus Ordo") do not assume the celebration versus populum, but the celebration versus orientem (improperly and theologically incorrectly: "celebration with the back to the people") when they say that the priest at the Orate, Fratres, at the Pax Domini, the Ecce Angus Dei and the ritus conclusionis turns to the people. This indication would be superfluous if the rubrics of the Novus Ordo would envisage the celebration versus populum. Thus also the post-conciliar Missal of Paul VI. assumes that the priest celebrates Mass turned towards the altar and not to the people. Before the Communion of the priest it even says explicitly "ad altare versus", turned to the altar. The third Editio typica of the revised Missale Romanum retains these rubrics (Missale Romanum [2002], Ordo Missæ, 515, No. 28, 600, No. 127, 601, No. 132 f., 603, No. 141).

The Institutio Generalis of 2000

Finally, in this context the Institutio Generalis to the third Editio typica of the revised Missale Romanum published for study purposes in 2000 is pertinent. There it says under No. 299:

Altare extruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile cirumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile est.

"The altar shall be built detached from the wall, in order that" or: so that "one can easily walk around it and celebration versus populum can take place on it, which is useful wherever it is possible."

In contrast to the instruction Inter Oecumenici of 1964, the Institutio Generalis of 2000 adds and explains that the construction of the altar detached from the rear wall is useful and beneficial (expedit). The benefit relates to the position of the altar, not to the direction of celebration. Of this it is merely said that it becomes possible by separating the altar from the rear wall (peragi possit). Here, too, therefore, no requirement of a celebration towards the people is being expressed.

But that means: There is no obligation to celebrate versus populum. This also clearly results from a response of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments of 25 September 2000: "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 [towards the people]." Then, the Congregation further explains: "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." The Institutio Generalis of 2000 therefore regards the celebration versus populum as a possibility, without excluding the celebration versus orientem resp. towards the altar.

Conclusion

Legally, therefore, the celebration versus orientem is the normal form of celebration. For reasons of space or architectural reasons, it is possible to place the altar separately from the back wall, which makes possible a celebration toward the people, but it must be stressed that on such an altar the celebration versus populum is not mandatory, but is provided for as a possibility.

Rev'd Dr Gero P. Weishaupt

Edited April 27, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Skinzo]

Rexi,
Sorry but you are the one who is wrong:

1. Rev. Weishaupt does not hold a position in Rome. His opinion carries no force. Moreover, he is merely stating that either position is possible. That changes nothing.
2. As already noted the CDW does for the sake of "communication" state a preference for the versus populum position, as noted in my previous post and sourced. One of course may say Mass either way.


S.

[Ephrem Augustine]

I know I do not have any resources for this great discussion right now
but it should also be noted that the practice of free standing alters had existed in the Roman Rite prior to the Reforms, one of the purposes being that the Bishop would walk around the alter with the thurible for incensing. I don't know if anybody has a reference for that, I just don't off the hand. These free standing alters in Roman Rite churches that were installed decades and centuries ago, were not put in place for the use of versus populum however.

[Ephrem Augustine]

I also came across a good post on [url="http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/"]The New Theological Movement[/url] on why Pope Benedict XVI doesn't just do a sweeping "Reform of the Reform" referencing from some of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's writings on Liturgy. I found it very helpful.
[url="http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/01/cant-holy-father-just-make-liturgical.html"]Can't the Holy Father Just Make the Liturgical Reform Happen?[/url]
However, our Pope is attempting to send a very clear message by example in favor of Ad Orientem.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='27 April 2010 - 05:17 AM' timestamp='1272363426' post='2100874']
1. Rev. Weishaupt does not hold a position in Rome. His opinion carries no force.[/quote]

Quite frankly, neither does yours.

[quote name='Skinzo' date='27 April 2010 - 05:17 AM' timestamp='1272363426' post='2100874']
Moreover, he is merely stating that either position is possible. That changes nothing. [/quote]

That is certainly not all he is saying. Look at the end of the article: "Legally, therefore, the celebration versus orientem is the normal form of celebration."

[quote name='Skinzo' date='27 April 2010 - 05:17 AM' timestamp='1272363426' post='2100874']
2. As already noted the CDW does for the sake of "communication" state a preference for the versus populum position, as noted in my previous post and sourced.
[/quote]

The aforementioned CDW merely states that versus populum can be convenient, not that it is normative or preferred.

I think one thing that is important to note in this argument is that the rubrics of the Novus Ordo presume that the priest is facing [i]ad orientem[/i]. They direct the priest to turn towards the people at certain points (such as before the "Orate fratres").

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='27 April 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1272401990' post='2101097']
Quite frankly, neither does yours. [/quote]

It's not mine Rexi. All I've done is to point out what the CDW is saying. I in fact have not given my opinion! And yes the opinion of the CDW matters more than his. If legal is what interests you then take this from the "Inter Oecumenici" of 1964:
"[font="Times New Roman"][size="+1"][color="#000000"][font="Times New Roman, Times, Arial"][size="3"]It is lawful to celebrate Mass facing the people even on an altar where there is a small but becoming tabernacle."[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
#95, Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites)- September 26, 1964

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='27 April 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1272401990' post='2101097']
That is certainly not all he is saying. Look at the end of the article: "Legally, therefore, the celebration versus orientem is the normal form of celebration."
[/quote]

Again, so what? His opinion does not matter versus the CDW. It's obvious from the clarification issued by the CDW that either position is possible. Again, refer also to the 1964 instructions that "facing the people" is "lawful".



[quote name='Resurrexi' date='27 April 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1272401990' post='2101097']
The aforementioned CDW merely states that versus populum can be convenient, not that it is normative or preferred. [/quote]

If you bother to read the whole thing they indeed go quite beyond the question of mere position. The instruction takes us much further and into an important area which both sides of this controversy appear to ignore:
[b]"[/b][font="Times New Roman, Times, Arial"][size="3"][b]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 [u]physical position[/u], especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior[i] [/i][u]spiritual orientation[/u] 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 [i]versus populum, [/i]which is a legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be [i]versus Deum per Jesus Christum [/i][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 [i]versus Deum [/i][towards God] as its first spiritual movement."[/b]
Nonetheless, the CDW points out that "versus populum" is "legitimate" and "often advisable" Is that close enough to "preferred" for you and Mister Ed?

[/size][/font][quote name='Resurrexi' date='27 April 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1272401990' post='2101097']
I think one thing that is important to note in this argument is that the rubrics of the Novus Ordo presume that the priest is facing [i]ad orientem[/i]. They direct the priest to turn towards the people at certain points (such as before the "Orate fratres").[/quote]

That is one possible interpretation. Another one is that the rubrics may only have included the instruction to turn towards the people so as to be sure the priest actually does do that at certain times. Of course, it does not matter since the CDW has confirmed that either position, ad orientem or versus populum is acceptable. At the risk of pointing out the terribly obvious here, the vast majority of all Masses are being said "versus populum". That of course includes almost all the Masses said by the last FOUR popes. At no time has the CDW raced out with directions saying "WAIT! " the normative way is to face the altar! I think both sides are not noticing that when saying Mass versus populum for example, the priest IS facing the altar and the people at the same time since the altar is between him and the people. I'll go with the CDW's idea that our spiritual attitude ought always to be "versus Deum per Jesus Christum".
As the CDW concludes:
" [b][font="Times New Roman, Times, Arial"][size="3"]There is no need to give excessive importance to elements that have changed throughout the centuries. What always remains is [i]the event[/i] 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.[/size][/font]"[/b]
It needs to also be pointed out that it was indeed possible prior to Vatican II to say Mass "versus populum".

[url="http://adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html"]http://adoremus.org/...w-adorient.html[/url]


S.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Skinzo

[Luigi]

Of all the mountain-out-of-a-molehill arguments I've read on Phatmass, this may be the most mountainous. My home parish was built in 1917 or something. In its original configuration, the priest faced south (facing the altar, with his back to the people); the altar was moved forward during the 1970s, and the priest now faces north (behind the altar and facing the people).

The altar in our cathedral also has a north-south axis (bishop/cardinal faced north pre ad populum, south post ad populum).

If Jesus comes again while we're in church, I guess most of us will turn our heads to the left to watch. That is, if we can see through the brick & plaster walls to see him coming at all.

I can't believe it makes a whit of difference what direction the priest or the people face when they pray. Have we all become Muslims here, or what?

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Luigi' date='27 April 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1272426211' post='2101387']
Of all the mountain-out-of-a-molehill arguments I've read on Phatmass, this may be the most mountainous. My home parish was built in 1917 or something. In its original configuration, the priest faced south (facing the altar, with his back to the people); the altar was moved forward during the 1970s, and the priest now faces north (behind the altar and facing the people).

The altar in our cathedral also has a north-south axis (bishop/cardinal faced north pre ad populum, south post ad populum).

If Jesus comes again while we're in church, I guess most of us will turn our heads to the left to watch. That is, if we can see through the brick & plaster walls to see him coming at all.

I can't believe it makes a whit of difference what direction the priest or the people face when they pray. Have we all become Muslims here, or what?
[/quote]

Luigi,
You make some good points, but I think we are dealing here with an authentic mountain and it is a subject on which I for one find myself rather conflicted. I am trying to listen and reason about both sides of this controversy, and so far I see that our own spiritual disposition is more important than the position we face as you are saying. I can appreciate your sense of confusion. This is a problem when too many changes in the liturgy happen as Cardinal Ratzinger points out in "The Spirit of the Liturgy".
If all churches were indeed built facing east, then this whole issue would be very simple. As that practice has been very much abandoned confusion has reigned. I think I agree with you in the sense that our spiritual disposition is more important than the direction we face. Nonetheless, I would also say it isn't a matter of becoming Muslims. Some here feel very passionately that an "ad orientem" position is vital as that is "Apostolic tradition". But putting passions aside can be very helpful and can lead us to some clear thinking.

S.

[Nihil Obstat]

I would argue that if a church is built so as to not face east, the priest could face "spiritual east", ad orientem. It would be the ideal to also be facing geographical east, but I think in this case the symbolism can suffice.
As Pope Benedict says, "Where a direct common turning towards the east is not possible, the cross [the crucifix] can serve as the interior "east" of faith." (Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 83) He goes on to say that the crucifix should be on and in the middle of the altar.
In my opinion this is even preferable to the entire congregation and celebrant facing east as one (if the church is not oriented so as to have physical east and the crucifix in the same direction), although some may disagree with me. I would consider this a legitimate organic development.

In any case, if one is tempted to dismiss this debate as either unimportant, irrelevant, or frivolous, I would highly recommend Chapter 3 of Spirit of the Liturgy, and indeed the entire book. On this subject (orientation) in particular Pope Benedict presents a very strong case for Tradition to prevail. I would strongly disagree with Luigi's intention when he says "I can't believe it makes a whit of difference what direction the priest or the people face when they pray. Have we all become Muslims here, or what?", and I hope that you, Luigi, get a chance to read and take in the case the Holy Father presented in his book.

[Nihil Obstat]

Insomnia smells of elderberries a lot, especially the night before two huge exams, but at least I got that post in!

[Laudate_Dominum]

I would argue that Jesus is a friend of mine.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8[/media]

[Apotheoun]

Fidelity to Apostolic Tradition, which along with scripture is the inspired word of God, should be every Catholic's passion.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Hilde]

A priest told me it felt weird sometimes doing the standard prayers sort of towards the congregation. I can understand that.