[livius]

The Tridentine Rite was a reform of the so-called Roman or Frankish rite, which was adopted throughout Europe in the 9th century. It replaced a number of regional rites, such as the so-called "Visigothic Rite" in Spain, which was actually more similar to the Eastern Rites than to the Latin Rites (there had been a Greek influence).

Obviously, in the first few centuries, there was probably some minor variation in practice, but these things were gradually standardized throughout the Christian world, with regional practices being brought in line with a more universal practice, whether that of Rome or that of Constantinople. We don't know exactly what people did in the 3rd century, and while many liturgists seem to base their entire theory on what these people did (regardless of how little we actually know about it), in many ways, it doesn't matter.

As you have correctly pointed out, facing ad orientem was part of a tradition of well over 1,500 years, that is, the majority of the life of the Church (Eastern or Western). In this respect, the NO Mass or at any rate the versus populum position did represent a radical break with tradition and it did represent a change in spiritual orientation as well as physical orientation. Martin Luther was among the first to reject the ad orientem position, and Protestants - who subscribe to the bizarre theory that somehow the "true Church" was born, existed for a century or so, and then went underground until Martin Luther came along - have always rejected the sacrificial aspect and focused on the "meal" aspect. Protestant Biblical scholars were hence very eager to "prove" that Mass was celebrated facing the people, although more and more archeological evidence is pointing to the fact that even in early times, the altar was set away from the wall simply so that the priest could go around it or incense it; and in fact, even pagan sacrificial tables were free-standing.

My feeling is that returning the celebration of the Latin rite Mass to the ad orientem direction would also do a lot to promote unity between the East and the West. I realize there are also many other issues (!), but certainly returning to unity in our liturgical theology and practice could only help.

[pravknight]

Funny, my former Lutheran pastor performed our liturgy ad orientem while I was growing up.

[kosta50]

Thank you livius, much obliged. I didn't realize that the Visigothic Rite was of Eastern variety, but it makes sense given that it is closer to Coptic/Alexandrian roots geographically.

As for the altar, I believe that the unchanged liturgical and ecclesiastical tradition of the East corroborates archeological findings that the altar was not against the wall as much as the fact that both western and eastern liturgical traditions support the "ad orientem" worship.

Here, a bishop incenses the altar with Presanctified Gifts, facsing "ad orientem." The people are to the left.

Certainly, bringing our liturgical services in conformity with those of the Church in the first millennium would help believers of the west and the east recognize one and the same faith, as well as one and the same Church. And that would be a giant leap towards spiritual unity as a prerequisite for a formal one.

[Claud]

From what I remember, the Visigothic Rite (i.e. the Mozarabic Rite, which is a representative of the Gallican Rite) was always considered to be a Western Rite, but, as livius said, its roots are by some thought to have been in the East rather than Rome.

[pravknight]

All of the altars in the Eastern rites have always been freestanding.