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.
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.
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?
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.
"... 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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
Meanwhile, here is a Mass in the same diocese which satisfies the bishop's "vigilant" oversight.
https://twitter.com/M_P_Hazell/status/1486464124834004992
"... 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.
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
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.
This analysis by Fathers Koterski and Cullen is very helpful: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3963