There are many who would say celebrating the Mass this way is turning the clock back. Many priests today, including me, were taught that facing the people is the most historic way to celebrate Mass. But the Benedictine, Fr. Nathanael Hauser has the most historic perspective on the politics of facing the people that reformers after Vatican II (not during) were able to pull off.
Fr. Nathanael writes, "For instance, [many progressive liturgists ask today] 'Will the priestly role of mediation be reinforced by praying at the altar with the priest's back to the assembly?' The question itself reveals the implied response and gives no credit to the past fifty years of scholarly attention that has been given to the question of the orientation of the altar. This question is not about scholarship, or of turning back the clock, but of what the progressive prefers. Indeed, that there is no real scholarship behind the turning of the altars was admitted as early as 1959 in an article by John H. Miller, (“Altar facing the People: Fact or Fable” Worship 33. 2. 83-91) in which he says that given the scholarship of the day “… advocates of the altar “versus populum” base their cause on other reasons BESIDES historical ones. We invoke two theological reasons: a deeper consciousness of the reality of sacramental priesthood and a valued appraisal of the Mass as a banquet in format. To this we add a valid psychological motive: the people can see better the actions of the priest and understand them as, at least partially, directed towards themselves.”
So what do you like about ad orientem and what do you like about ad populum?
16 comments:
I was taught by dear Sr. Alice many years ago to always keep my eyes on the chalice after the consecration. It keeps the mind and heart focused on the Eucharist and not on the distractions within the church.
In the same vain, I think that facing ad orientum lessens the distractions for the priest that they cannot avoid when facing ad populum. It may also move them to more reverently say the Mass (those who have lost that reverence). With fewer distractions for the priest, maybe the faithful of the church will also become more reverent.
Two thoughts: in the Year of Our Lord 2010 the clergy and laity that support the ad populum presentation are 'ancient' in appearance and carry that aire of historical understanding. It is easy to forget they once wore tie-dyed shirts and long hair. Secondly, facing the altar could be confused with facing the (usually) present representation of Christ. Considering the psychological aspect Fr Nathaniel also addresses, it is important that everyone know we are facing the altar, not the statue, which has led to confusion and charges of idolatry.
So the intent must be explained and the people educated. The Priest faces the people when he is preaching, it would seem appropriate that he face the direction we should go when he is leading.
RCG
Since ad orientem celebration is obviously preferable to who all who understand the Mass properly as a re-presentation of the Sacrifice on the Cross, I thought the most salutary photo might be the properly vested deacon properly receiving Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling.
I don't want to be overly negative, but:
What do I like about ad orientem? Everything.
What do I like about ad populum? Nothing.
I agree, there should be some catechesis regarding why the priest is facing a Crucifix to avoid concerns of idolatry. I would point out, though, that there should be catechesis regarding why the priest is facing the people, as well.
I think it is more confusing for the people when Mass is ad populum. It seems the conventional thinking is that the Mass is like a normal meal where we all gather round the table as the priest celebrates. Yes, the Mass is LIKE that, but it is not that. The Mass is the re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. The consecration is THAT sacrifice. That sacrifice is not a meal presented to us the laity, but is a sacrifice presented to God the Father. The priest should not be facing us as if we are the ones accepting that sacrifice or as if it were a meal, the priest should face God the Father (the liturgical East) and offer that sacrifice to Him.
After the sacrifice of the altar, then the Heavenly banquet begins and the faithful receive the Most Blessed Sacrament. Therefore, as in the EF, the priest then faces the people are presents the sacrament ("Ecce agnus Dei...").
We must keep in mind that the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is separate from, albeit related to, the sacrament. The Mass has both elements: sacrifice and banquet feast.
Father, what about using the high altar in your church when you celebrate the OF or the EO form of mass? It would be so beautiful!!!!! Did you notice that the novus ordo altar was removed for the mass at the basillica in Washington DC a few weeks ago? It sure seemed so "Catholic" God Bless Father, and thanks for everything you do!!!
Two Bits! Faux Bits! Six Bits! An Altar!
Is an altar on which the Sacrifice of Jesus to the Father is re-presented in an un-bloody manner rightly styled a "faux" altar? There is nothing "faux" about the Sacrifice, so is it fitting to call the altar "faux?" The altar takes its meaning from the sacrifice, and if the sacrifice isn't "faux" I would say neither is the altar.
Pater Ignotus,
Perhaps I can inform you of the principle of "unicity of altar", for full explanation of which you can easily located the pertinent Church documents.
None of these documents actually uses the term "faux altar". However, it seems to be accurately descriptive of a second temporary altar that is set up in a church that has an older permanently installed altar.
Henry, I know the principles. Is Good Father McDonald celebrating mass on a "faux" altar in St. Joseph Church then? I don't think so!
A faux altar is a temporary, collapsible altar once used in the Sistine Chapel in place of the glorious real altar attached to the wall.
The future Roman Pontiff provides the answer: "In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horseshoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to 'face the people' to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasised just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table."
Pater Ignotus,
I do not know how "temporary" Fr. MacDonald's table altar is. If (like a similar one I know of) it has rollers, then I personally would call it a "faux altar" that qualifies for use of its rollers.
At any rate, I understand from Fr. Zuhlsdorf that CDWDS has stated that “table” altars ought not be set up in front of important and clearly dominant main altars (cf. Notitiae (May) 1993).
If this is so, then perhaps Fr. MacDonald's altar is -- with the usual "all else being equal" proviso -- an "inappropriate" altar.
I long for the day when I walk into St. Joseph's and the temporary altar has been permanently removed from the Church. I'm guessing 2014.
Ad Orientem completely re-orients the entire Mass. I did not realize it the first few times went to the EF, but when I returned to a NO Mass said Versus Populum I was struck at what a difference there was in the atmosphere. Facing the people engages the Priest directly with the people most of the time during Mass. He has to pay attention to them. When someone sneezes or coughs his focus goes in that direction. There is no avoiding that. The natural pull directs in towards the actions of the congregation. Which means he is probably distractly momentarily during many moments of Mass. Not good. It is a huge difference and if not so they would simply return all Masses Ad Orientem as has been the case for most of history. If for educational purposes Versus Populum should be allowed at one Sunday Mass and people who feel the need could go, learn what the Priest is doing and then return to their normal schedules. They do not have to see the Priests' actions, every Mass for life in order to learn.
The orientation of the priest changes the whole relationship of the bride and groom. For me when the priest is ad orientum it expresses the whole community together worshiping in gratitude and true reverence for the action at the alter. Ad populum seem counter to the offering taking place, as if the offering is being offered up to us. Just as in real life when we give or offer something to another we face them and present it, then expect a positive responce back. In the Mass is not Christ offering himself to the Father, are we not participating in this offering with our Lord through His priest. Facing the alter/tabernacle expresses this offering in proper perspective, we the bride give thanks for the gift we have received from the groom. I do think that the old alters should be used, the tabernacle should be in the sancturary (not off to the side/that changes the focus) and the priest should perform at least the Euchaistic prayers ad orientum. This would take away the focus on the layity and put it back on God.
It is now clear, after 40 years, both that ad orientem celebration has no historical precedent and that this experiment has been a pastoral disaster.
Obviously, the Church is now groping for how to correct the errors that have been made, but it's like turning around an ocean liner with a billion passengers.
The fact that the last time rapid changes occurred turned out to be such a pastoral disaster is certainly a caution.
Though the fact that it was bad to do a bad thing fast, may not prove that it would be bad to just go ahead and do a good thing. Apples and oranges?
What I like about ad orientem worship is that I am relieved of the constant distractions. When the Priest's face, and the majority of the actions on the altar are removed from my direct sight I can focus better on that Priest as my intercessor and not as the MAN I know and love as a Pastor and a person.
What I like about ad populum is quite frankly, nothing. But what I dislike about it most is what it has contributed to in the way of laity misunderstanding and misconception of what is taking place on the altar, and the resulting loss of souls by that confusion.
Post a Comment