Ad orientam v. Versus populum

[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.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Apo:

I had never thought before about the issue of which direction a congregation should face, but the more I read of what you write, the more I understand why the issue is so important to you, and why you feel it should be important to all Catholics. Apart from all the theological issues (of which I am obviously VERY ignorant), it makes sense why this should at least be the goal, even if the architecture of some Catholic churches, particularly those that are newly built, makes it more difficult to carry this out.

And, you are obviously not the only one who feels this is an important issue. I've been mentally doing a survey of every Catholic church that is near me, and, in all of them, the congregation faces East. I had never noticed or thought about the reason for this before. (The fact that all the Catholic churches face East may, be due, in part, because I live in an area where most of the churches are at least 75 years old, and many of them more than 100 years old.) And, although I know that it is immaterial to you, every Anglican/Episcopal congregation in my "mental survey" also faces East.

I have learned a lot from you. Thank-you.

Edited April 28, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Apotheoun]

Having the priest face the people while praying the Eucharistic anaphora, as Robert Sokolowski pointed out some years ago, creates a closed circle that at the phenomenological level excludes God and creates the impression that the community is the source of its own life.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='28 April 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1272485020' post='2101744']
Apo:

I had never thought before about the issue of which direction a congregation should face, but the more I read of what you write, the more I understand why the issue is so important to you, and why you feel it should be important to all Catholics. Apart from all the theological issues (of which I am obviously VERY ignorant), it makes sense why this should at least be the goal, even if the architecture of some Catholic churches, particularly those that are newly built, makes it more difficult to carry this out.

And, you are obviously not the only one who feels this is an important issue. I've been mentally doing a survey of every Catholic church that is near me, and, in all of them, the congregation faces East. I had never noticed or thought about the reason for this before. (The fact that all the Catholic churches face East may, be due, in part, because I live in an area where most of the churches are at least 75 years old, and many of them more than 100 years old.) And, although I know that it is immaterial to you, every Anglican/Episcopal congregation in my "mental survey" also faces East.

I have learned a lot from you. Thank-you.
[/quote]
The eastward orientation during prayer was so important to the Church Fathers that they held that this orientation properly extended into other areas of Christian ritual, e.g., the Holy Fathers held that the dead should be buried with their feet facing east so that when the parousia occurs the dead would arise facing the Lord of Glory, who will return from the east. The east, according to the Church Fathers, signifies the eschaton, i.e., the Kingdom of God.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Laudate_Dominum]

Everybody interested in this topic ought to read Uwe Michael Lang's book imo. It is the best recent summary of the issues that I am aware of.

Here is the foreword to the book by Pope Benedict.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/forewd_umlang_may05.asp

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='28 April 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1272486831' post='2101767']
Everybody interested in this topic ought to read Uwe Michael Lang's book imo. It is the best recent summary of the issues that I am aware of.
[/quote]
It is a good book, and I gave a Google books link to it a few pages back. It would make an excellent addition to a person's liturgical library.