Q: In my personal experience, research, and formation on the subject, I have seen many liturgical, symbolic, and historical reasons supporting celebration of the Mass ad orientem. On the other hand, most of the arguments in favor of versus populum are more pastoral in nature–that this is what people are used to, and that we need to be understanding of that. I know that at one point, modern scholarship posited that versus populum was a more historical form of celebration, but that in the last 40 years that research has become outdated, undermining the historical argument for versus populum. Are there any arguments for versus popular on a similar theological level as Ratzinger’s defense of ad orientem celebration?
==
A: I’ve consulted a colleague for some suggestions. He writes this:
+++
Kevin Irwin deals with it in his book Models of the Eucharist in his chapter “Food for the Journey,” which is about eschatology. He places it under the rubric of “Location of the Altar” (pp. 195-197 in the 2nd edition).
John Baldovin addresses the topic in Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to the Critics in his chapter “Major Issues,” in a first section titled “”Liturgical Architecture and the Orientation of the Priest” (pp. 105-113).
The question asker is correct that this is a pastoral issue, and the question of orientation isn’t fundamentally about history but about what allows the Church to celebrate the Eucharist in a way that is most pastorally effective.
I heard Robert Taft give a lecture a number of years ago. In the Q and A afterwards, someone raised the question about the orientation practiced in the Byzantine tradition and whether the West wouldn’t benefit by returning to this practice. Taft proceeded to talk about some changes going on in the Serbian Orthodox Church, where several bishop have mandated moving the altar outside the icon screen and the priest to celebrate facing the people – why? To engage them in the liturgical action more directly. Why important? Their salvation. The bishops used pastoral judgment about the spiritual welfare of their members which trumped longstanding custom.
The change in the West is really rooted in the emergence of mystical body ecclesiology, always in Paul, remembered theologically by Johann Möhler and the Tübingen School in the 19th century, and embraced by Pius XII in 1943 in Mystici Corporis. The historical arguments are all in service of this theology. The reason why Paul VI adopted the posture in the 1969 GIRM is not fundamentally historical but pastoral.
Personally, I think the ad orientem folks are more interested in bolstering the clerical headship of the eucharist rather than the full, conscious, active participation of the faithful in the liturgy (who incidentally are also members of the priesthood of Christ in their own order).
By the way, the 1570 Missal (and up to 1962) made provision for the priest to face the people if the architecture of the church required it, e.g., at the high alter at St. Peter’s where the confession makes it impossible for the priest to “face the east.” I think it’s a question of architecture historically.
+++
Me again: I would stress my colleague’s final point: the baptismal priesthood of the people of God demands their full engagement at the Mass, especially at the altar. The altar does not belong to the priest. It belongs to the entire People of God gathered to offer sacrifice.
View All Blog Posts | Explore Books | Submit a Blog Question