Translate

Saturday, July 25, 2020

MAYBE THE PROBLEM WITH AD ORIENTEM IS DESCRIBING IT AS FACING GOD OR CHIRST AND NOT A SYMBOL OF FACING A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO BOTH CATHOLIC AND EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS NOT TO MENTION MANY ANGLICANS AND LUTHERANS


We could declare that "ad orientem" is more ecumenical liturgically speaking than the priest facing the congregation, something novel imposed upon the Latin Rite portion of the universal Church around 1966. Up until that time, in a particularly non ecumenical period, the Catholic Church had more in common with its direction of worship with most liturgical Protestants and certainly with all of Eastern Orthodoxy.

The change to facing the congregation at Mass in 1966 separated the Catholic Church liturgically from the one branch of Christianity that we should enjoy the most ecumenism, especially in the sharing of the Sacraments, the Eastern Orthodox.

I believe it is wrong to say that ad orientem means facing God or Christ. It is a facing of a geographical location on earth and an eternal location based upon the one on earth, the heavenly Jerusalem.

It is the geographical symbol both here on earth and in heaven that has been lost when the priest prays to God facing the congregation especially when no cross is centrally placed upon the altar facing the priest.

Of course we can experience ad orientem both literally or symbolically.  But facing the east symbolically or literally means facing Jerusalem on earth and the new Jerusalem in heaven, facing Golgotha/Calvary, facing the rising sun.

Why? Because the allegory of Christ's second coming, symbolized in the Divine Liturgy, is that He will return from the East, from the new and old Jerusalem, from the direction of His tomb blown open by the atomic qualities of the resurrection yet gentle and non destructive.

It is a smoke screen of out date liturgists imbued with a 50 year tradition of facing the congregation to say that it doesn't matter which way the priest faces as God is omnipresent. Balderdash!

We are facing a direction of Christ's actual return at the end of time and that is important, too important to pooh-pooh as modern liturgists are prone to do.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

"We are facing a direction of Christ's actual return at the end of time and that is important,..."

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." You say one thing then contradict it within a paraghraph or two.

You say, "Because the ALLEGORY (caps mine) of Christ's second coming, symbolized in the Divine Liturgy, is that He will return from the East,..."

Then you turn around and concretize the ALLEGORY (a figurative treatment on one subject [the return of Chirst at the end of time] under the guide of another) and giving it a non-allegorical application [the physical location of the city of Jerusalem].

You would say, "We should face the liturgical east, which can be North, South, East, or West if we suspend our disbelief and pretend which is perfectly fine, because in actual fact (no, it's not) Jesus will return from the East/Jerusalem."

Think through what you say...

Peter Kwasniewski said...

Thanks, Father, for these reflections. I recommend getting a copy of my latest book, where I have a good treatment of "ad orientem" in its many dimensions of meaning. It is a polyvalent symbol: it's eschatological, but also Patricentric, Christocentric, and cosmic. When we understand it on all these dimensions, we see the fullness of its sign value.

https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Our-Roman-Catholic-Birthright/dp/1621385353

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I believe all worshippers facing God in the tabernacle is far more pertinent, than facing East toward (vaguely) Jerusalem (and how about churches due North of Jerusalem?) or sun/Sonrise (which smacks of appropriated Sol Invictus worship practices) and all the other purely symbolic meanings.

And so it had always been where even the most ancient churches, back to home churches in time of persecution which could not be "oriented"/facing East, nor could many purpose built churches be aligned to Jerusalem or geographic or solar East due to site layout/terrain/confines of other property), nor does "liturgical East" hold much water when idea given much thought.

Facing God, all eyes and attention on God in his Holy of Holies, is concrete vs all the other specious reasoning.

Mark Thomas said...

I recall that the versus populum novelty was very popular (and remains so) among the Latin Church Faithful when introduced during the 1960s.

"Father has his back to us" was/is a turn off to many folks at Mass.

Pax.

MarkThomas

rcg said...

Anon, you are dissembling. Fr McDonald has a Sponerish writing style but it is reasonably clear what he means. Furthermore, relatively petty attacks might be construed by reasonable, if not more mature, minds as conceding the argument.

The idea that God is everywhere so it doesn’t matter which way we face seems to miss the point. Humans are severely limited by time and space so we work best when focused on a particular point. It also helps clarify the object of the prayer when the priest is clearly not addressing the congregation. Furthermore, the priest faces the congregation during the homily and and at the instance where he specifically turns to face us and speak. I don’t expect a sports figure to face us when making a play although 50,000 of us are there specifically to watch what he does and cheer him on. If I have any remote concept of what the priest is doing at Mass I should be concerned that he focus on that business. To even be concerned otherwise is ignorant or adolescent.

John Nolan said...

Along with Dr Kwasniewski's book, I would also recommend 'Turning towards the Lord' (2004,2009) by Uwe Michael Lang, a readable and non-polemical overview of recent scholarship.

I notice that many Anglicans have taken to celebrating versus populum although the medieval parish churches they occupy are nearly always oriented with the chancel at the east end.

The common orientation of priest and people is of more symbolic significance than the actual direction they both face. And the placement of the tabernacle is not really relevant; in a cathedral it would not be on the high altar anyway, and when a bishop celebrates in a church where the Sacrament is reserved on the altar, the tabernacle is emptied.

Pierre said...

Mark Thomas,

There you go again spouting off on a subject you know nothing about. I was around when versus populum was forced on us. It was not popular with me and many others It was probably the most deleterious of the liturgical “reforms.” You realize of course the rubrics presume the priest is celebrating Mass ad orientem

Anonymous said...

As I move up in years and observe how history tends to repeat itself, I now understand that "Father has his back to us" was something we were told bothered us. It wasn't necessarily our opinion, it was the opinion we were told we had. We were given that opinion by those who wanted to advance an agenda of liturgical and Church reform."Father has his back to us" is a catchphrase. A shibboleth? It is akin to a political slogan. Something easily recited to alter peoples opinion. There are a lot of things I am told bother me. To be honest I liked those big altars, the fancy vestments, the smell of incense, the flickering of many candles, and the sounds of bells both big and small. I liked the stained glass windows,the statues, the dark places in the traditional church architecture. I liked the uniformity and predictability and tradition of a standard confessional, and I liked altar rails. To me, the only time "Father has his back to us" is when Father breaks with tradition to advance some newfangled fad. That is my opinion, not the opinion I was told I have.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

You should definitely celebrate Mass ad orientem. No one wants to look at your kisser

Mark Thomas said...

Pierre, you live in a fantasy world should you dispute the reality that from the 1960s to date, Mass versus populum has been popular among the Latin Church Faithful.

For that matter, vernacularized liturgy, as well as Communion in the hand, have also proved tremendously popular with the Faithful.

Going back to the 1950s, Pope Venerable Pius XII's overthrow of the ancient, traditional, midnight Eucharistic Fast proved a popular radical liturgical reform.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

MT, to be honest, you should have written that of the 12% of Catholics who still attend Mass, about 8% like the things you mention. Should we not consult the 88% who after 50 years of innovation and so called renewal are completely ambivalent about the Mass in whatever form? Has their faith been renewed or destroyed by all these things you say Catholics like?

Pierre said...

Mark Thomas,


LOL - you lack self awareness and judgment. If all of these changes are so “popular” please explain how 80 percent of Catholics went to Mass in the US in the 1950s compared to barely 20 percent now. Do facts matter to you, at all? You are missing the whole point of this Blog. Think about it

Anonymous said...

All tabernacles may not be dead front center, in every church, but it is darned tootin' for sure God right there on that altar and upon whom all eyes and attention be fixed in love.

Mark Thomas said...

It is one thing to discuss as to whether the reform of the Roman Liturgy has renewed (whatever that means) the (Latin) Church — at least the Church throughout the West.

The Church, in Africa and Asia, for decades, has boomed in holy fashion. Vatican II, as well the liturgical reform, are alive and well in Africa and Asia.

Again, it is one thing to discuss the condition of the Church, at least throughout the West, in relation to the liturgical reform.

-- But it is preposterous to pretend that at least beginning during the 1940s and 1950S, and onward, that liturgical reforms had been imposed unwillingly upon the Faithful.

-- Pope Venerable Pius XII had launched the Commission for Liturgical Reform.

-- Bishops throughout the world had surveyed the Faithful in regard to liturgical matters.

-- The liturgical movement had been underway for years.

-- Catholic publications were filled with stories about the unstoppable, very popular, reform of the Roman Liturgy.

-- Pope Venerable Pius XII then responded favorably to the tremendous amount of feedback that he had received from the bishops and faithful, who, in turn, had called for serious liturgical reform.

From there, during the 1960s, additional radical liturgical reforms had proved popular among the Faithful.

Pax.

Mark Thomas




Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald, from the 1960s to date, millions of Catholics have departed the Church.

Countless folks have left for reasons other than liturgical.

In recent decades, many folks left as the result of the non-existent child abuse scandal.

That is, many left as they had accepted, and been demoralized, by the left-wing, and right-wing endless hype, within and without the Church, that pretended that one priest after another was/is a child molester.

Many left as they rejected Church teachings related to sexual morality. Catholics who wanted to engage in premarital sex, homosexuality...divorced Catholics wished to remarry...

Many Catholics left as they viewed Catholicism simply as nonsense.

One survey after another has placed liturgy far down the list as to why Catholics have left the Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Pierre,

Following the introduction of the Novus Ordo, Mass attendance exploded throughout Africa and Asia. Worshipers packed the pews. I thought that the Novus Ordo Mass had emptied the Church?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Pierre said...

Anonymous at 2:17,

Well for many modern day Catholics, I would not have much confidence they believe that

Pierre said...

Mark Thomas,

And Mass attendance collapsed in Europe and North and South America. 20 times more folks were lost to the Church than were gained in Asia and Africa. Your assertion is ludicrous and puerile. Grow up

Pierre said...

Mark Thomas

Even Hollywood doesn't buy your nonsense. Here is a Hollywood Reporter talking about the boring, modern Catholic Church, compared to its glorious past:

The Catholic Church, through the lens of Hollywood anyway, is still in 1566. Nuns wear habits, altars are bedecked in gold, and the air is perfumed by incense and chant. Simply put, traditional Catholicism provides a more attractive setting than modern Catholic churches, starkly decorated and doused in taupe (and everyone knows it).

HBO has no interest in our modern church aesthetics either. Its 2016 series The Young Pope starred Jude Law as Pope Pius XIII, a staunch traditionalist whose knowing wink in the opening credits was the face that launched a thousand traditionalist memes. Donning a papal tiara, fanned with ostrich flabella, and bestriding the sedia gestatoria, Law’s character felt strangely like an inside joke between secular media and young traditionalists, who shared a whispered giggle about the pending decline of Baby Boomer hegemony.

Anonymous said...

MT....apparently you did not take enough Immodium for your "mouth issue" the last time.

Please take another dose.....

Vatican Zero said...

The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre told us a lot about the explosion of the Church in Africa and how it could have been even greater...needless to say, the natives didn't convert because of their mad interest in the great new improved "Novus Ordo". Asia? Asia is dominated by Communist governments. You make the Church illegal and the underground Church is ALWAYS going to attract converts (and we won't even touch on the disgraceful "deal" PF has taken up with the Commie fake church in Beijing). It is quite one thing to look at developing nations who are still absorbing the faith, but it is absurd and disingenuous to compare them to Western Civilization which traded in its rich liturgical legacy for a trailer park motif.

Anonymous said...

"Ad orientum" may be more ecumenically liturgical with the Eastern Orthodox, but these days not necessarily anymore with the more liturgical Protestants (Anglicans and Lutherans). Many Episcopal parishes have turned their altars around---I would say that in vast majority of parishes in the (Episcopal) Diocese of Atlanta, the Eucharist is celebrated facing the congregation. But there was a good side to that, if you can believe it. Weekly celebration of the Eucharist was rare in many Episcopal parishes before the 1970s---typically a "low" parish (the common regime in the Episcopal South) might just have Holy Communion on the first Sunday of the month and major feast days, or maybe the 1st and 3rd Sundays and Matins (Morning Prayer) the other Sundays. In the old days, having a back altar in the Episcopal Church might have been seen as more decorative, but by moving it forward, it encouraged weekly celebration of the Eucharist. You don't really need an altar to conduct Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer, so otherwise what would be the point of a free-standing altar in the middle if you were not having Communion every Sunday? One Episcopal bishop told me years ago that Vatican 2 had a positive impact on Episcopal Church worship, nudging their worship toward weekly celebration of the Eucharist---and the rediscovery of eucharistic vestments, which seldom were worn in many Episcopal parishes before the 1960s (of course some still don't, sticking with an alb and stole, no chasuble, for Communion).

a :modified" ad orietum could suit me---the priest leading the liturgy of the word from his presiding chair, the epistle and Gospel read from the pulpit or ambo, and then proceeding to the altar for the liturgy of the Eucharist.

John Nolan said...

It's interesting reading TripAdvisor reviews on historic Catholic churches in popular tourist destinations (for example the London and Oxford Oratories). They are by Catholics from all over the world, as well as non-Catholics and those with no religion.

Experiencing a Solemn Mass in Latin (usually, but not always, in the OF) celebrated ad apsidem and accompanied by glorious music, Catholics of all ages and nationalities do not react by moaning that the priest 'has his back to them', that they don't understand Latin, or that there are no vernacular hymns for them to sing. Quite the opposite in fact; they are clearly deeply impressed by the experience.

Since the 1950s the number of converts to Catholicism has dwindled to a trickle. There could be many reasons for this. Back then people often converted when they married a Catholic, whereas nowadays mixed marriages are commonplace. But Catholic liturgy was also an attraction, and not just for intellectuals with refined aesthetic tastes. Nowadays Catholic worship styles in most places are barely distinguishable from other denominations.



TJM said...

Anonymous at 11:43,

The modified ad orientem you mentioned is the practice at the Latin OF at St. John Cantius in Chicago.

Pierre said...

John Nolan,

My mother, raised a Methodist and her church’s soloist, converted to Catholicism in 1951, while my father was recovering from his wounds received in the Korean War. My mother told me what attracted her was the Catholic Mass and its music. She was disappointed with the liturgical “reforms”

Anonymous said...

I noticed Mr. Immodium is taking a break!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps he went to visit Africa and Asia....

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 7:56,

LOL, that's a long trip from Mom's basement.

Anonymous said...

😂😂😂