I struggle to imagine any worshiper's being more engaged at Mass simply because she can see the priest's face. One rather suspects that it was more about priests wishing to be seen. But for better or worse, after so many years I think most in the pews would respond to priest "turning his back on them" much as some crowds were offended by Miles Davis's doing it.
When I look at the altar, I am looking at the elements, not the priest's face. And my focus is on Jesus, not the priest. But it is much harder to see the Consecration when the priest's back is in the way.
Not for me. That's also why he lifts up the host and the cup immediately after. I'm okay with versus populum but strongly prefer ad orientem. I think the Priest facing the people brings the Priest's personality too much into it no matter how hard he tries to de-emphasize himself. I like the idea of all praying together with him in the same posture other than of course the dialogues etc. For me, the Versus Populum experiment was understandable (although Boyer, no opponent of reform, was wary of it very early!) but it has not succeeded. If I am invited to the synodality listening sessions, I will suggest the Church scrap the failed experiment. Or at least make totally clear to Bishops it cannot be banned or discouraged and to provide notice that Bishops will be disciplined who do so.
I didn't mean to imply that versus populum can't help some people more fruitfully pray the Mass. I was just assuming (without basis) that the people whose lack of engagement was such as to cause concern were not usually tuning out only because they couldn't see what was going on.
What about the great Catholic "both/and" as opposed to "either/or". Granted, the versus populum posture is more prevalent since the end of V2; therefore, if a priest wants to use the ad orientem posture he would need to spend some time catechizing the members of the parish before implementing the change in posture.
The Church is rapidly shedding members, particularly among the young. Fussing about which way the priest is facing is a lot like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Marty, I couldn't disagree more. Attending a Mass said ad orientem was the single biggest factor in my getting more serious about the faith after college. It signified the Mass's character as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice infinitely more clearly than the versus populum Masses I'd attended growing up.
In a way, I think Mass said versus populum brings us right back to what many say was the preconciliar square one, that too many of the faithful couldn't understand, couldn't follow, couldn't hear, etc. In the average Mass said versus populum, there's precious little to indicate its character as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice save for the words of the prayers themselves. For those who aren't old enough to understand, too hard of hearing, attending Mass in a second language, uncatechized, or just not paying attention--which is to say, the majority of the faithful on a given Sunday--Mass celebrated versus populum struggles mightily to communicate the essential character of the liturgy. For all too many, it makes the true, contemplative actuosa participatio in the sacred mysteries that Sacrosanctum Concilium identified as the highest goal of the liturgical reform a near impossibility.
One of the liturgical theologies that VC2 wanted to re-emphasize (emphasize along with and as much as the sacrificial nature of the mass) is the nature of mass as a meal. The mass is also called the "supper of the Lord" -Scott Hahn has a book called "The Lamb's Supper". We gather around the table of the Lord.
One reason for creating the free-standing altar is because it was a better representation of the table that we can gather around. it is why some newer churches are more U shaped and the altar is brought forward to create a more gathered environment for Mass.
It is notable that in the Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (USCCB) that "eye contact is important in any act of ministry - in reading, in preaching, in leading the congregation in music and prayer." With would lead to the idea that versus populum is a much-preferred posture.
The idea that ad orientem and versus poplulm are theologically equivalent postures is not correct.
The ad orientem posture does nothing specifically for me that re-enforces the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The gathering around the altar and facing the priest who represents Christ as the table says a lot more to me about the meal nature without de-emphising the sacrificial nature.
Some friends of mine put a lot of time into trying to track down that CDW document from 2000. It is around the internet, but they could never find an official source to prove it wasn't a forgery.
Can you confirm that you have seen an official copy, so we can put those fears to rest?
What I've seen of it are the citations in sufficiently numerous publications to take it as fact (actually, I've not thought to question its existence, so widely reported has it been) with no expectation of seeing the letter itself, since it was a letter, by design not published in AAS or similar. I've never heard the idea that it was a forgery. I can certainly look into that possibility, but it seems highly, highly unlikely to me.
My skepticism was raised by the fact that all of the internet versions seem to lack an address to a specific bishop or bishops' conference, which is odd given that it was clearly a response to a dubium.
Regardless, if a priest wants to follow the proper appeal process rather than shooting a letter straight to Rome, it is really hard to cite this source to the ordinary with no official source. Alas!
Are you suggesting that following the law and using the legal, expected, and even encouraged procedures given to us by the Church might be interpreted, not as fidelity and obedience, but as a threat to authority?
*shock!* *dismay!!*
(Point taken. Thank you for allowing me to reach my sarcasm quota for the day.)
In regard to the April 2000 letter, the statement "... that letter has generally been understood to confer priests the right to choose a liturgical posture..." doesn't seem convincing to me, in the absence of the source document. Understood by whom? How can it confer a right if there is no official notice? The earliest reference to it I found was from a post by Fr. Joseph Fessio S.J. in 2001 (https://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=20573) ... other references I have found online all seem to be copied verbatim or rewritten from what he quoted (i.e., what he found relevant).
I am presuming good will, but I would be leery of saying that something is completely accurate simply because it gets quoted a lot. I would want to have the full context to better understand the point of the letter. You do note that it isn't an official interpretation of canon law, which I appreciate ... although again, without seeing the actual document, who knows for sure?
In regard to the September 2000 letter from Cardinal Estévez, it doesn't seem to be posted in the CDW's Notititae but it was apparently printed in the "Comunicationes" of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts ... which seems an odd choice to me (see 32 at the following web address for the link to the index for the year 2000) http://www.delegumtextibus.va/content/testilegislativi/it/pubblicazioni/riviste.html.
Your article quotes rather briefly from it, which seems appropriate given that it is a "primer." But those who choose to read the full text will find something to ponder in the Cardinal's statement that GIRM 299 "reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier" and then cites a 1993 editorial in the CDW's Notitiae discussing the matter.
The Cardinal also wants to make clear the importance of both the priest and the assembly having the proper interior disposition "toward God." Perhaps most challenging is the Cardinal's final paragraph about rigidity (bearing in mind that it was written at a particular moment in time ... during the Jubilee Year 2000 ... which likely provides context as well):
"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."
May all the faithful take a step back and realize we are all worshipping God, no matter which position the priest is facing. It's really insulting when one way or another is put out there as "better" or more reverent. If you want one way and it's allowed by your bishop, all the power to ya'. But if the church's authority says something, you better submit your own thoughts and feelings to the church that Jesus founded.
"But if the church's authority says something, you better submit your own thoughts and feelings to the church that Jesus founded."
After the horrific abuse revelations of the last forty years I can't think of a more-jarring injunction than "submit." They might have the *power* to order something--but the moral authority to back it up is running on fumes.
I am not sure if one way is better than the other, but I think one way is more reverent than the other, and therefore better for our souls. In my view, Ad Orientem is more reverent than Versus Populus, just because the priest is facing the Lord (in the tabernacle, asumming it is positioned behind the altar) and is facing the direction where Jesus will come the second time. More reverence is better than less reverence.
Now of course, there are those who can take an argument too far. That being said, I find the attitude that we can't make objective statements about the liturgy (especially novel practices) unhelpful. In terms of the orientation of the priest, ad orientem is simply a superior symbol of conveying what is happening in the ritual of the mass. If the priest is directing his prayer towards God, why use a vague and confusing symbol?
"... The only way to know for certain whether the Vatican would allow a bishop to prohibit the ad orientem posture is for the liturgy congregation to hear an appeal from a priest who believes his bishop’s policies are unjust...." It seems to me that the Vatican would respond in such a fashion as to create more confusion and ambiguity.
One wonders where this pattern is coming from since it wasn’t in TC or even the dubia. Are they all just following Cardinal Cupich or were there some behind the scenes discussions with Anselmo? Is this their idea of extending the slap down of Cardinal Sarah a few years ago when he exhorted a return to this practice ? But even that slapdown was not interpreted as a ban. This element of the TC implementation is so unnecessary and unwise even from those opposed to traditional forms . Like pouring gas on a fire. At least Cardinal Cupich gave permission to the Canons of St. John Cantius (as opposed to the poor priest who wrote letters etc ). I suppose that is at least a scrap from the table.
Thanks. This was a clear and well researched article. I appreciate having one article that distills so many divergent points of view on this topic in an unbiased and well written manner.
To what extent is priest and people facing "symbolically eastward" really a thing in historical and present use? I know that older Roman Missals had directions assuming that if the altar was in the west end of the Church, then the celebrant would face the people- they would not "symbolically" face together to what is actually the west. This was and still is the case in several prominent churches in Rome, including the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran and St. Peter's Basilica. Based on this, I would posit that only churches with altars in the east end should should drop versus populum, and in all cases a free-standing altar should be preferred unless there is a more fitting one against the wall.
Bishop Doherty in Lafayette, In said no to ad orientem early on. He's a "company man."
Bishop Doherty on “ad orientem” celebration:
The Catholic Moment
Serving the Diocese of Lafayette‐in‐Indiana | Est. January 21, 1945
August 21, 2016
A message from Bishop Doherty on priest posture during Mass
(Editor’s note: Bishop Timothy Doherty shares that part of his July 14 memorandum to priests and deacons in the Diocese of LafayetteinIndiana that addresses priest posture during Mass.)
You are probably aware of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s July 7 talk in London where he addressed the subject of Mass ad orientem, generally understood as a Mass where the celebrant’s back is to the assembly. In a July 12, 2016, letter to the bishops of the United States, Bishop Arthur Serratelli, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship, says that “no changes to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal are expected at this time, nor is there a new mandate for the celebrant to face away from the assembly.”
“... n. 299 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal does show a preference for the celebrant’s facing the people ‘whenever possible’ in the placement and orientation of the altar.”
Bishop Serratelli’s letter ends with this: “Although permitted, the decision whether or not to preside ad orientem should take into consideration the physical configuration of the altar and sanctuary space, and, most especially, the pastoral welfare of the faith community being served. Such an important decision should always be made with the supervision and guidance of the local bishop.”
Since the faith community that we serve is the whole diocese, I foresee no circumstance where the Ordinary Form isn’t observed in our scheduled Sat.Sun. parish Masses. While I hope I am not tiring you by writing about this, I want you to know that I care about this matter. It is important that we demonstrate our unity in the basic forms of Eucharistic Liturgy.
As a member of this diocese, I asked a few priest friends about this instruction yesterday. All 3 had more or less the same reply. They thanked the bishop for clarifying this position and not forcing each priest to deal with it individually. "Most, if not all of us, do not want to do ad orientem masses and we told the bishop this. We are glad the bishop listened." According to them this is rather a nonissue here as we have not had anyone requesting ad orientem masses.
"There is no idea that we would do some {Sunday} masses one way and some the other. It would be an all or nothing decision which would surely create a lot of dissatisfaction with most of the parish if we tried to please the few who would like this change. Besides, the newer churches do have a freestanding altar, but they have not necessarily been positioned such that it would be "safe" to celebrate ad orientem as there may not be sufficient room from the front of the altar to the sanctuary steps. We can walk around them but celebrating mass would be tricky."
Further I like the idea that, in this case, he is unifying the diocese on this. issue. Note that he does not say no but that he does not see a reason to have ad orientem masses. Also, the restriction is Sunday only.
Personally, I agree with the bishop. I do not see any reason or improvement by having ad orientem masses.
I will say something further... one weekday in our small day chapel our new associate priest decided to push the small movable altar against the wall and do an ad orientem daily mass. I did not care for it but it was ok. We were so physically close it did not feel like he had his back to us anyway.
My biggest issue was that he said absolutely nothing to the people about why he was doing this or even what he was doing and THAT is my big problem with stuff like this. Priests change things, modify something in the mass that is ok to change locally, and NEVER tell the people what or why. Ritual actions are done for a reason. They are not ever just neutral actions - they all have meaning. Changes must be explained - and justified as to why this is better. Never just changed.
Thanks for this explainer! I don't routinely attend mass ad orientum but the first time I did, I had an aha moment of realizing the obvious - that the priest is leading us and not performing for us. Both postures should be allowed and I wish ad orientum was more common.
I wonder why you would think that by facing the people the priest was not leading us. Why does leading require facing away? Conductors lead musicians facing them, choir directors lead by facing the choir, when asked to "lead us in prayer" the priest or person does not suddenly turn their back to the group. After all the priest is leading us in our Eucharistic prayer. He is not "performing" for us. He is joining us in prayer.
"A lower legislator cannot validly issue a law contrary to higher law."
This is what I wrote for the Adoremus Bulletin:
If, then, celebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem is a legitimate practice—one in keeping with liturgical tradition and current liturgical law, and affirmed as at least an option by the Holy See—can a diocesan bishop prohibit it, as is the case in some norms implementing Traditionis Custodes on the local level?
When the revisions following the Second Vatican Council first emerged, many questions came along with them. One of them wondered about a bishop limiting the various options in his diocese for the sake of uniformity: “In order to attain uniformity when more than one possibility is given by the rubrics, whether the territorial authority competent for the whole region or the Bishop for his diocese can establish that a single way of doing things be adhered to by all?” The responsa from the Vatican answered: “Per se this is permissible. But always keeping before one’s eyes not to take away the freedom the new rubrics provide of adapting the celebration in an intelligent manner both to the church and to the group of the faithful, so that the universal sacred rite may actually be a living thing for living people.”[6]
The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (“On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist”), written by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments at the request of Pope John Paul II (see Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n.52), invokes this same clarification when describing “The Diocesan Bishop, High Priest of his Flock”:
“It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, ‘within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.’ Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding” (21).
Quoting Canon 838 § 4, the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum clarifies that the ability of the diocesan bishop to set forth liturgical norms in his diocese is circumscribed “within the limits of his competence.” Thus, a bishop can legislate for the liturgy within his diocese, but, it appears, he cannot narrow the options that the universal law permits. That is, he cannot establish norms contrary to higher law: “A lower legislator cannot validly issue a law contrary to higher law” (Canon 135, §2).[7]
Can we get a refresher on this article? Has anything changed within the ad orientum debate as Traditiones custodes and the subsequent dubia has played out in the church?
I struggle to imagine any worshiper's being more engaged at Mass simply because she can see the priest's face. One rather suspects that it was more about priests wishing to be seen. But for better or worse, after so many years I think most in the pews would respond to priest "turning his back on them" much as some crowds were offended by Miles Davis's doing it.
When I look at the altar, I am looking at the elements, not the priest's face. And my focus is on Jesus, not the priest. But it is much harder to see the Consecration when the priest's back is in the way.
Not for me. That's also why he lifts up the host and the cup immediately after. I'm okay with versus populum but strongly prefer ad orientem. I think the Priest facing the people brings the Priest's personality too much into it no matter how hard he tries to de-emphasize himself. I like the idea of all praying together with him in the same posture other than of course the dialogues etc. For me, the Versus Populum experiment was understandable (although Boyer, no opponent of reform, was wary of it very early!) but it has not succeeded. If I am invited to the synodality listening sessions, I will suggest the Church scrap the failed experiment. Or at least make totally clear to Bishops it cannot be banned or discouraged and to provide notice that Bishops will be disciplined who do so.
I didn't mean to imply that versus populum can't help some people more fruitfully pray the Mass. I was just assuming (without basis) that the people whose lack of engagement was such as to cause concern were not usually tuning out only because they couldn't see what was going on.
What about the great Catholic "both/and" as opposed to "either/or". Granted, the versus populum posture is more prevalent since the end of V2; therefore, if a priest wants to use the ad orientem posture he would need to spend some time catechizing the members of the parish before implementing the change in posture.
The Church is rapidly shedding members, particularly among the young. Fussing about which way the priest is facing is a lot like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Indeed
I'm not fussing; I think both postures should be used. As to deck chairs, the Church may take on a lot of water, but she won't sink!
Marty, I couldn't disagree more. Attending a Mass said ad orientem was the single biggest factor in my getting more serious about the faith after college. It signified the Mass's character as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice infinitely more clearly than the versus populum Masses I'd attended growing up.
In a way, I think Mass said versus populum brings us right back to what many say was the preconciliar square one, that too many of the faithful couldn't understand, couldn't follow, couldn't hear, etc. In the average Mass said versus populum, there's precious little to indicate its character as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice save for the words of the prayers themselves. For those who aren't old enough to understand, too hard of hearing, attending Mass in a second language, uncatechized, or just not paying attention--which is to say, the majority of the faithful on a given Sunday--Mass celebrated versus populum struggles mightily to communicate the essential character of the liturgy. For all too many, it makes the true, contemplative actuosa participatio in the sacred mysteries that Sacrosanctum Concilium identified as the highest goal of the liturgical reform a near impossibility.
One of the liturgical theologies that VC2 wanted to re-emphasize (emphasize along with and as much as the sacrificial nature of the mass) is the nature of mass as a meal. The mass is also called the "supper of the Lord" -Scott Hahn has a book called "The Lamb's Supper". We gather around the table of the Lord.
One reason for creating the free-standing altar is because it was a better representation of the table that we can gather around. it is why some newer churches are more U shaped and the altar is brought forward to create a more gathered environment for Mass.
It is notable that in the Environment and Art in Catholic Worship (USCCB) that "eye contact is important in any act of ministry - in reading, in preaching, in leading the congregation in music and prayer." With would lead to the idea that versus populum is a much-preferred posture.
The idea that ad orientem and versus poplulm are theologically equivalent postures is not correct.
The ad orientem posture does nothing specifically for me that re-enforces the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The gathering around the altar and facing the priest who represents Christ as the table says a lot more to me about the meal nature without de-emphising the sacrificial nature.
Some friends of mine put a lot of time into trying to track down that CDW document from 2000. It is around the internet, but they could never find an official source to prove it wasn't a forgery.
Can you confirm that you have seen an official copy, so we can put those fears to rest?
https://www.ccwatershed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/79000-CDW-Bishop-Peter-Christensen-Diocese-Boise-Idaho-ad-orientem.pdf
Thanks! This is the September response, not the April letter in question.
What I've seen of it are the citations in sufficiently numerous publications to take it as fact (actually, I've not thought to question its existence, so widely reported has it been) with no expectation of seeing the letter itself, since it was a letter, by design not published in AAS or similar. I've never heard the idea that it was a forgery. I can certainly look into that possibility, but it seems highly, highly unlikely to me.
My kingdom for a CDW edition of Roman Replies!
My skepticism was raised by the fact that all of the internet versions seem to lack an address to a specific bishop or bishops' conference, which is odd given that it was clearly a response to a dubium.
Regardless, if a priest wants to follow the proper appeal process rather than shooting a letter straight to Rome, it is really hard to cite this source to the ordinary with no official source. Alas!
Yes, that's quite true.
And then there are questions about the prudence of such an appeal at the present moment as well.
Are you suggesting that following the law and using the legal, expected, and even encouraged procedures given to us by the Church might be interpreted, not as fidelity and obedience, but as a threat to authority?
*shock!* *dismay!!*
(Point taken. Thank you for allowing me to reach my sarcasm quota for the day.)
Fr. Jeffrey Moore is my hero!
In regard to the April 2000 letter, the statement "... that letter has generally been understood to confer priests the right to choose a liturgical posture..." doesn't seem convincing to me, in the absence of the source document. Understood by whom? How can it confer a right if there is no official notice? The earliest reference to it I found was from a post by Fr. Joseph Fessio S.J. in 2001 (https://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=20573) ... other references I have found online all seem to be copied verbatim or rewritten from what he quoted (i.e., what he found relevant).
I am presuming good will, but I would be leery of saying that something is completely accurate simply because it gets quoted a lot. I would want to have the full context to better understand the point of the letter. You do note that it isn't an official interpretation of canon law, which I appreciate ... although again, without seeing the actual document, who knows for sure?
In regard to the September 2000 letter from Cardinal Estévez, it doesn't seem to be posted in the CDW's Notititae but it was apparently printed in the "Comunicationes" of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts ... which seems an odd choice to me (see 32 at the following web address for the link to the index for the year 2000) http://www.delegumtextibus.va/content/testilegislativi/it/pubblicazioni/riviste.html.
A copy of the scanned document in the original Italian can be found here: http://notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/pdf/communicationes-2000-171-173.pdf ... it seems authentic. The unofficial English translation here is probably as good as any: https://adoremus.org/2007/12/letter-on-the-position-of-the-priest-during-the-eucharistic-liturgy/ ... Adoremus states, without attribution, that it is a response to a "European cardinal’s question..."
Your article quotes rather briefly from it, which seems appropriate given that it is a "primer." But those who choose to read the full text will find something to ponder in the Cardinal's statement that GIRM 299 "reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier" and then cites a 1993 editorial in the CDW's Notitiae discussing the matter.
The Cardinal also wants to make clear the importance of both the priest and the assembly having the proper interior disposition "toward God." Perhaps most challenging is the Cardinal's final paragraph about rigidity (bearing in mind that it was written at a particular moment in time ... during the Jubilee Year 2000 ... which likely provides context as well):
"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."
I found your point convincing enough as to have slightly modified the text.
That is kind of you. Looking forward to my subscription automatically renewing next week. Keep up the good work!
thank you, my friend!
May all the faithful take a step back and realize we are all worshipping God, no matter which position the priest is facing. It's really insulting when one way or another is put out there as "better" or more reverent. If you want one way and it's allowed by your bishop, all the power to ya'. But if the church's authority says something, you better submit your own thoughts and feelings to the church that Jesus founded.
"But if the church's authority says something, you better submit your own thoughts and feelings to the church that Jesus founded."
After the horrific abuse revelations of the last forty years I can't think of a more-jarring injunction than "submit." They might have the *power* to order something--but the moral authority to back it up is running on fumes.
I am not sure if one way is better than the other, but I think one way is more reverent than the other, and therefore better for our souls. In my view, Ad Orientem is more reverent than Versus Populus, just because the priest is facing the Lord (in the tabernacle, asumming it is positioned behind the altar) and is facing the direction where Jesus will come the second time. More reverence is better than less reverence.
Now of course, there are those who can take an argument too far. That being said, I find the attitude that we can't make objective statements about the liturgy (especially novel practices) unhelpful. In terms of the orientation of the priest, ad orientem is simply a superior symbol of conveying what is happening in the ritual of the mass. If the priest is directing his prayer towards God, why use a vague and confusing symbol?
Meanwhile, here is a Mass in the same diocese which satisfies the bishop's "vigilant" oversight.
https://twitter.com/M_P_Hazell/status/1486464124834004992
As Flaubert used to say when faced with contemporary idiocies: It makes one dream! (I admit this loses a bit in translation).
"... The only way to know for certain whether the Vatican would allow a bishop to prohibit the ad orientem posture is for the liturgy congregation to hear an appeal from a priest who believes his bishop’s policies are unjust...." It seems to me that the Vatican would respond in such a fashion as to create more confusion and ambiguity.
One wonders where this pattern is coming from since it wasn’t in TC or even the dubia. Are they all just following Cardinal Cupich or were there some behind the scenes discussions with Anselmo? Is this their idea of extending the slap down of Cardinal Sarah a few years ago when he exhorted a return to this practice ? But even that slapdown was not interpreted as a ban. This element of the TC implementation is so unnecessary and unwise even from those opposed to traditional forms . Like pouring gas on a fire. At least Cardinal Cupich gave permission to the Canons of St. John Cantius (as opposed to the poor priest who wrote letters etc ). I suppose that is at least a scrap from the table.
Thanks for this! So helpful to hear about the actual regulations or lack thereof.
Thanks. This was a clear and well researched article. I appreciate having one article that distills so many divergent points of view on this topic in an unbiased and well written manner.
Aw shucks, Danny. But seriously, feel free to continue saying nice things…
Did robot engineer pull at your heart strings there, JD? If so, it was unintentional, I can assure you. ;-)
To what extent is priest and people facing "symbolically eastward" really a thing in historical and present use? I know that older Roman Missals had directions assuming that if the altar was in the west end of the Church, then the celebrant would face the people- they would not "symbolically" face together to what is actually the west. This was and still is the case in several prominent churches in Rome, including the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran and St. Peter's Basilica. Based on this, I would posit that only churches with altars in the east end should should drop versus populum, and in all cases a free-standing altar should be preferred unless there is a more fitting one against the wall.
Thanks for clarifying. I do wish the communication from the Holy Father would be clear and concise - in this matter and many others.
Bishop Doherty in Lafayette, In said no to ad orientem early on. He's a "company man."
Bishop Doherty on “ad orientem” celebration:
The Catholic Moment
Serving the Diocese of Lafayette‐in‐Indiana | Est. January 21, 1945
August 21, 2016
A message from Bishop Doherty on priest posture during Mass
(Editor’s note: Bishop Timothy Doherty shares that part of his July 14 memorandum to priests and deacons in the Diocese of LafayetteinIndiana that addresses priest posture during Mass.)
You are probably aware of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s July 7 talk in London where he addressed the subject of Mass ad orientem, generally understood as a Mass where the celebrant’s back is to the assembly. In a July 12, 2016, letter to the bishops of the United States, Bishop Arthur Serratelli, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship, says that “no changes to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal are expected at this time, nor is there a new mandate for the celebrant to face away from the assembly.”
“... n. 299 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal does show a preference for the celebrant’s facing the people ‘whenever possible’ in the placement and orientation of the altar.”
Bishop Serratelli’s letter ends with this: “Although permitted, the decision whether or not to preside ad orientem should take into consideration the physical configuration of the altar and sanctuary space, and, most especially, the pastoral welfare of the faith community being served. Such an important decision should always be made with the supervision and guidance of the local bishop.”
Since the faith community that we serve is the whole diocese, I foresee no circumstance where the Ordinary Form isn’t observed in our scheduled Sat.Sun. parish Masses. While I hope I am not tiring you by writing about this, I want you to know that I care about this matter. It is important that we demonstrate our unity in the basic forms of Eucharistic Liturgy.
© The Catholic Moment, 2010‐16 | P.O. Box 1603, Lafayette, IN 47902 | 765‐742‐2050 | Fax: 765‐269‐ 4615
As a member of this diocese, I asked a few priest friends about this instruction yesterday. All 3 had more or less the same reply. They thanked the bishop for clarifying this position and not forcing each priest to deal with it individually. "Most, if not all of us, do not want to do ad orientem masses and we told the bishop this. We are glad the bishop listened." According to them this is rather a nonissue here as we have not had anyone requesting ad orientem masses.
"There is no idea that we would do some {Sunday} masses one way and some the other. It would be an all or nothing decision which would surely create a lot of dissatisfaction with most of the parish if we tried to please the few who would like this change. Besides, the newer churches do have a freestanding altar, but they have not necessarily been positioned such that it would be "safe" to celebrate ad orientem as there may not be sufficient room from the front of the altar to the sanctuary steps. We can walk around them but celebrating mass would be tricky."
Further I like the idea that, in this case, he is unifying the diocese on this. issue. Note that he does not say no but that he does not see a reason to have ad orientem masses. Also, the restriction is Sunday only.
Personally, I agree with the bishop. I do not see any reason or improvement by having ad orientem masses.
I will say something further... one weekday in our small day chapel our new associate priest decided to push the small movable altar against the wall and do an ad orientem daily mass. I did not care for it but it was ok. We were so physically close it did not feel like he had his back to us anyway.
My biggest issue was that he said absolutely nothing to the people about why he was doing this or even what he was doing and THAT is my big problem with stuff like this. Priests change things, modify something in the mass that is ok to change locally, and NEVER tell the people what or why. Ritual actions are done for a reason. They are not ever just neutral actions - they all have meaning. Changes must be explained - and justified as to why this is better. Never just changed.
Thanks for this explainer! I don't routinely attend mass ad orientum but the first time I did, I had an aha moment of realizing the obvious - that the priest is leading us and not performing for us. Both postures should be allowed and I wish ad orientum was more common.
I wonder why you would think that by facing the people the priest was not leading us. Why does leading require facing away? Conductors lead musicians facing them, choir directors lead by facing the choir, when asked to "lead us in prayer" the priest or person does not suddenly turn their back to the group. After all the priest is leading us in our Eucharistic prayer. He is not "performing" for us. He is joining us in prayer.
This analysis by Fathers Koterski and Cullen is very helpful: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3963
Does Canon 135 §2 figure into this?
"A lower legislator cannot validly issue a law contrary to higher law."
This is what I wrote for the Adoremus Bulletin:
If, then, celebrating the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem is a legitimate practice—one in keeping with liturgical tradition and current liturgical law, and affirmed as at least an option by the Holy See—can a diocesan bishop prohibit it, as is the case in some norms implementing Traditionis Custodes on the local level?
When the revisions following the Second Vatican Council first emerged, many questions came along with them. One of them wondered about a bishop limiting the various options in his diocese for the sake of uniformity: “In order to attain uniformity when more than one possibility is given by the rubrics, whether the territorial authority competent for the whole region or the Bishop for his diocese can establish that a single way of doing things be adhered to by all?” The responsa from the Vatican answered: “Per se this is permissible. But always keeping before one’s eyes not to take away the freedom the new rubrics provide of adapting the celebration in an intelligent manner both to the church and to the group of the faithful, so that the universal sacred rite may actually be a living thing for living people.”[6]
The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (“On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist”), written by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments at the request of Pope John Paul II (see Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n.52), invokes this same clarification when describing “The Diocesan Bishop, High Priest of his Flock”:
“It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, ‘within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.’ Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding” (21).
Quoting Canon 838 § 4, the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum clarifies that the ability of the diocesan bishop to set forth liturgical norms in his diocese is circumscribed “within the limits of his competence.” Thus, a bishop can legislate for the liturgy within his diocese, but, it appears, he cannot narrow the options that the universal law permits. That is, he cannot establish norms contrary to higher law: “A lower legislator cannot validly issue a law contrary to higher law” (Canon 135, §2).[7]
https://adoremus.org/2022/09/q-is-it-contrary-to-liturgical-law-to-celebrate-the-postconciliar-mass-ad-orientem/
Can we get a refresher on this article? Has anything changed within the ad orientum debate as Traditiones custodes and the subsequent dubia has played out in the church?