Replies

Big bang from the major author of the Catechism. The hits just keep on coming!

26 February 2007

Ad orientem versus at the Viennese Cafeteria

CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 11:48 am

In Vienna being turned toward the East has been a constant experience through history. Sometimes it has been a matter of life or death.

In the spirit of the informal motto we have taken here, Save The Liturgy – Save The World - I tip my biretta to Gerald over at the Cafeteria (or in this case Viennese Caffe) for a something from Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn he translated. o{]:¬) He got it from Kath.net. Here is what Card. Schoenborn has to say about Mass celebrated versus populum and ad orientem versus. My emphasis and comments.

The question "people’s altar or high altar" has become a reason for dispute. A Viennese parish decided, to once more celebrate Mass using the baroque high altar. A movable people’s altar will only be used for "family Masses". Someone told the media about this which resulted in some clamoring, including the hilarious statement that from now on the priest would "preach to the wall" in this church! [How often do we hear the laughably stupid phrase that the priest has his "back to the people"?]

    First and foremost: It is not decisive in which direction the celebrant faces, but rather what happens on the altar. [True. However, from a point of view of the "psychology" of the changes, Klaus Gamber said that the deorientation of the altar was the more destructive change after the Council.]

    ...

    Second: Both directions of celebration are justified and neither should be suspected or "ideologized". [cough] Mass isn’t celebrated "to the people" or "to the wall", but to God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. The celebration turned "to the people" has the meaning that we all, priests and laypeople, gather around Christ who symbolizes the altar and whose Body and Blood become present on the altar [cough]. The celebration "with the back to the people" is not a turning away from the faithful but facing in the same direction in prayer, expression of the path we walk walk towards God as pilgrims, His wandering people.

Third: Vatican II did not say anything about the direction of the celebrant. It wasn’t until 1969 that the GIRM said (Nr. 262): "The main altar should be built separated from the wall, so that it can be walked around easily to make the celebration versus populum (towards the people)" In the 2002 edition the following is added: "This should be the case wherever it is possible". The Roman Congregation has declared this as a recommendation, not a requirement. [There is a great deal of controversy about this GIRM 299, which the American bishops mistranslated in their "Built of Living Stones", the successor of your favorite and mine, the so-called Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, which though it had ZERO authority was the basis of Dresden-like devastation to our churches and the souls that (used to) frequent them.]

    Fourth: The oldest direction for prayer is towards the East. The Jews prayed towards Jerusalem, the Muslims towards Mecca, the Christians towards the rising sun which symbolizes the Risen Christ. Thus the respective orientation of the synagogues, mosques and churches. The orientation, ie the "Eastwardness" of churches is one of the "original laws" of church architecture. St. Peter’s in Rome faces westward for practical reasons. therefore the Pope celebrates facing the doors, which are in the East, and because of that towards the people. It is good to remind oneself what "orientation" means.

    Lastly, a personal comment: I love both directions of celebrating Mass. Both are full of meaning for me. [cough] Both help me to encounter Christ – and that is, after all, the purpose of the liturgy.

Years ago I translated a piece in Notitiae which indicated that a new wind was starting ever so imperceptibly to puff into life. The CDWDS admitted, astonishingly, that where there was an important main altar we should not set up a table altar in front of it. This is because the prinicipal of the unicity of the altar for worship is so important.

Right! And let us not forget that His Holiness Pope Benedict has written about this very topic.

The Post-Synodal Exhortation is going to be coming out. I recall that during the Synod, some bishops from the East spoke about how the celebration of Mass "facing the people" had weakened the sense of the liturgy.

We need a massive re-orientation.

How far is the "high altar" from where the people actually sit? Is it near enough and visible enough so that the people feel part of the liturgy rather than just witnesses? When the people receive the body and blood, do they walk up to the high altar, or do the celebrant(s) bring the host and chalice to them? There seems to be some practical logistical issues that were solved by placing the altar closer to the people (usually in the crossing in cruciform shaped churches).

The question is this- what benefit does using the "high altar" provide other than some cool liturgical theater?

Mass isn't celebrated "to the people" or "to the wall",but to God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.

St. Peter's in Rome faces westward for practical reasons. therefore the Pope celebrates facing the doors, which are in the East, and because of that towards the people. It is good to remind oneself what "orientation" means.

This is an important point, because many of the VatII "reformers" justified themselves by claiming that the priest faced "towards the people" in masses in the earliest centuries. This is not true.

Churches used to be oriented so that the doors faced east, since the East was a sacred direction and in fact had been sacred even to the Romans, whose temples (many of them later used as churches by Christians) often opened towards the East to welcome the rising sun. Hence, when the priest celebrated towards the East, he was facing teh people. But as a very good book I read while in Rome examining some of these old churches put it, the point of reference was not the congregation, but the East. In other words, he wasn't "facing the people," but facing the East, and the people simply happened to be standing between him and the East.

Later, the orientation changed so that churches were built with the apse (where the altar is) facing the East, so the priest therefore was celebrating in that direction, with his "back to the people." Again, the location of the congregation was not the point of reference.

"... a step backwards, to before Vatican II"

Minor correction:

"... a step forwards, to before Vatican II"