Cardinal Schoenborn on "ad orientem" & "versus populum"

The Cafeteria is Closed ^ | February 26, 2007 | Cardinal Archbishop Schoenborn. (via Kath.net)

[Frank Sheed]

Cardinal Schoenborn on "ad orientem" & "versus populum"

From the good people of Kath.net, a great Austrian Catholic site comes this statement from Vienna's Cardinal Archbishop Schoenborn. The group "We are church" (roughly the equivalent of Call to Action, VOTF and such) had criticized the Archbishop's permission to the Viennese parish St. Rochus to use the original, Baroque, high altar instead of the "people's altar". The group said it meant making Mass using the high altar equal with Mass using the "people's altar" and called on Catholics to not attend Latin Masses because it constituted "a step backwards, to before Vatican II". St. Rochus has had very good Mass attendance for years, featuring four Sunday Masses that are very well attended. Obviously, I'll need to visit them when I'm in Vienna in May.

Cardinal Schoenborn writes on this subject (I translated):

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!

First and foremost: It is not decisive in which direction the celebrant faces, but rather what happens on the altar. We are called to focus on the "mystery of faith", on Christ who is in our midst, whose dedication to the Father, for us and for all people we celebrate in the Eucharist. We proclaim His death and His resurrection because they become present among us. That is the center and the source and the highpoint of the Christian life, as the Council stated several times. So this question arises on occasion of this "altar controversy" - are we sufficiently aware of this ?

Second: Both directions of celebration are justified and neither should be suspected or "ideologized" . 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. 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.

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. Both help me to encounter Christ - and that is, after all, the purpose of the liturgy.

posted by Gerald Augustinus at 12:18 AM

[Frank Sheed]

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

[Frank Sheed]

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.

[Frank Sheed]

This article was posted to the What Does the Prayer Really Say blogsite (immediately above). The translation is in the main story. Interesting stuff!

[bobjam]

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?

[Tax-chick]

Cardinal Schoenborn sounds reasonable, thoughtful, erudite, charitable, and eminently sane, as always. The commentator sounds like a snot, pardon my redneck idiom.

I realize it's irrational, but I am seriously biased against the opinions of snots, even to the point of changing my opinion on a subject if I find that I'm inclined to agree with one.

[technochick99]

In my pre-Confirmation meeting last week, the pastoral associate was using the phrase 'pray to the wall', and so forth. I like her personally, it was a short meeting, so I held my tongue. I think I surprised her enough with my declaration of love for the use of bells.

[markomalley]

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 celebrant and the people are both facing the east (ad orientem), the celebrant is clearly leading the people in prayer. When the celebrant is facing the people (versus populum), it is far too easy (IMHO) to sneak in a bit of liturgical theater, rather than concentrating on what's really happening in the sacrifice of the Mass. (I attribute the emphasis on the "table of the Lord" versus the "sacrifice of the Mass" in many parishes on this)

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 is an altar rail where people kneel to receive. Alternately, the priests and deacons (the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion) could carry the Body and Blood to more strategic locations outside of the sanctuary.

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).

From what I've seen, this is not that much of a major issue in classic cruciform churches.

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

IMHO, as said above, it helps prevent a whole lot of "cool liturgical theater," as the celebrant is reminded that Christ is the male lead in the theater and that he, the celebrant, is in a supporting role.

Examples: you ever see as the host is consecrated, that the priest appears to offer it out to the congregation? Same with the wine as it is being consecrated into the Precious Blood? Ever notice a priest ad libbing on the Roman Canon?

[NYer]

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

[Theophane]

If you don't like it, don't go to it. The versus populum position will still prevail at the vast majority of Masses. Just let those of us for whom ad orientem IS edifying and soul-enriching have it more readily avalable to us.

[livius]

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.

[AnAmericanMother]

I sometimes think that Monsignor realized that I would be a very loose cannon in OCIA . . . and decided that the most prudent course of conduct would just be to receive a bunch of wild-haired Anglo-Catholics and get it over with . . .

It was the better part of valour to hold your tongue . . . I don't think I would have been able to and it would have caused a lot of trouble . . .

[technochick99]

I am not going through RCIA, but since I am fairly well informed and all but-confirmed, I merely had to sit through a 1.5 hour class. My BF attended with me, out of idle curiousity, and I had to kick him more than once. The main message that the others walked out of the meeting with was that God wants us to be happy. It seemed that any point I made would be too far over their heads.

It's issues like this that make one realize that ignorant Catholics abound, sadly.

[Aquinasfan]

I heard a quote somewhere from the pope, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, that the ad populum orientation was one of the biggest mistakes of Vatican II. Rather than worshiping along with the priest, people now tend to see the priest as master of ceremonies, a fact which some priests like to encourage.

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, I think one of the purposes of converts is to stir things up a bit . . . < g >

The way I explain it is that (1) folks who have had something from the cradle don't always fully appreciate the value of what they've got, and (2) converts had to get off their duffs and make a decision to convert, so they have to have done some investigation and hard thinking. . . otherwise why bother?

[Frank Sheed]

I believe you are referring to Fr. Zuhlsdorf. He is a convert from Lutheranism and a Latinist in Rome. I generally enjoy his daily blog; it won an award this year.

[Frank Sheed]

Thanks for the kind clarifications. They are very helpful.

I think the issue mentioned in the 2nd post in "What Does the Prayer Really Say" (the "notitiae" statement) is that in a Church in which there IS already a high altar (as in many beautiful urban Churches), that it is not necessary to place an altar table in front of it.

If one will recall, ETWN televised beautiful Novus Ordo masses in which the priest was "ad orientem" and a great deal of Latin was used during the Consecration. Much of the rest of the Mass was in the vernacular. If this old brain remembers correctly, I believe the Bishop for the Alabama region in which EWTN is located has not been named (the former retired; he stopped this practice). There is great interest to see if the new Bishop will once allow the N.O. to be said with more Latin and "ad orientem."

[Frank Sheed]

Jimmy Akin has published a book called "Mass Confusion" which he updated regularly but which is now a tad bit behind the times. He goes through the entire GIRMs and adds the notitiae that were given later. It is extremely useful for showing to those who believe they know all that there is to know!

I think you will be surprised to find that the "bells" were not outlawed or forbidden. The initial GIRM stated that they are not necessary in locations such as abbeys or monasteries where those present are perfectly clear as to what is happening. In cases where there is a role for catechesis, however, they might be most useful. [This wording is spelled out more clearly by Akin; he makes the case that most Catholic Churches fall into this latter category].

My parish uses bells and always will until our Irish Pastor is forced to retire due to age or passes away.

[Frank Sheed]

It was the better part of valour to hold your tongue

"The better part of valour is discretion...'

Some Papist wrote that in Henry IV, Part I, but it is SO often misquoted!

;-o)

[ELS]

I think Tax-chick is talking about We Are Church in the blog post from Gerald Augustinus.

[Tax-chick]

I'm talking about the person with the cough. Persons who cough at Cardinal Schoenborn are snots, unless they're verifiably ill.