www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Renewal of the Liturgy: An Eastern Novus Ordo?

Thank you, Steve, for another thoughtful post. Let me speak to several of your arguments.

First of all, I need to reiterate that the versus populum is in fact a 20th century novelty. It does not belong to the essential structure of the Western rite. Consequently, my criticisms of it do not imply that I am pitting the Eastern Church versus the Western Church. It is my conviction, rather, that this innovation in orientation represents a dramatic departure from catholic order.

Saints Basil and John Damascene both refer to the custom of facing east as an apostolic tradition. See John's discussion, chapter 12:

John Damascene on facing east [ccel.org]

From the fourth century onwards, churches were invariably built on an east/west axis. There are exceptions, of course, but this does appear to be the rule. Usually the altar was sited in the east end of the building, but in the 4th century basilicas of Rome (and also some in North Africa), the altar was sited in the west end. This allowed the morning sun to flow into the building through the open doors of the facade. This meant, of course, that the celebrant was on one side of the altar and the congregation was on the other side. This does not imply, however, that he "faced the people." He faced east. As I mentioned earlier, some liturgists (Jungmann, Bouyer, Gamber) speculate that the congregation, which was gathered in the side naves, would then turn toward the east. However, this is debated by liturgists, as positive evidence is slender. Liturgist Thomas Talley, for example, thinks it unlikely that people would turn away from the altar, though he does not have any concrete evidence to support his position. Just a gut feeling on his part. Gamber argues that even if he is wrong about the congregation turning away from the altar to face east with the celebrant, this does not necessarily imply that celebrant and congregation faced each other, as the altar was often surrounded by curtains, which were closed during the singing of the Eucharistic prayer.

On the question of symbolism and transcendence, let me first invoke St. Augustine here on my side:

When priest and congregation together face the east, there can be no mistake that the sacrificial offering is being offered to the holy transcendence that is God. We are symbolicly open to God and the future that he brings to us. This knowledge is built, as it were, right into the very structure of our worship. As Cardinal Ratzinger writes:

I agree with you when you write that the transcendence of God can be invoked and experienced in a versus populum Mass. I simply suggest that the orientation works against it. We are, after all, looking at each other. This posture intimates the presence of God in our midst, his immanental presence, which plays right into the New Age and (nonChristian) Eastern spirituality that is so prevalent today in our culture.

In the 19th century, the Anglo-Catholic reformers in the Anglican Communion sought to restore a catholic understanding of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Consequently, one of the first things they did was to renovate the church buildings so as to allow for eastward prayer. They knew that it was not enough simply to "say" that the Eucharist was a sacrifice; it was necessary to embody this in the way we prayed. And then Rome came along and said that the "true" catholic practice was versus populum; and so we too jumped on the bandwagon, spent millions of dollars to pull out the altars (often destroying the integrity of our beautiful buildings in the process), and conformed ourself to modern Catholic practice--and in so doing we have completely lost any sense of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Yes, I know that Vatican II never mandated versus populum, but that's how the instructions were interpreted by Roman liturgists, theologians, and bishops in the 60's and 70's. And like lemmings, we Anglicans enthusiastically went along, as it tapped right into our native Protestant impulses.

Well, at least some folks in Rome are beginning to seriously question the adoption of versus populum, Cardinal Ratzinger being the foremost. Perhaps we will see its restoration in another generation, at least that is what one of my very good Catholic priest friends tells me. But I very much doubt that Anglicanism will ever re-adopt eastward orientation. The destruction has been too deep, not only to our buildings but also to the Anglican psyche. We have all but returned to the Protestant notion that the Supper is a memorial meal, with Christ present not so much in the elements--most Episcopalians probably are receptionists or virtualists when it comes to the Real Presence--but in the people. It's very odd. At the moment when Anglicanism has finally embraced the position that the Holy Eucharist is the primary act of Sunday worship, we have decisively lost a catholic understanding of the Eucharist. I grieve.

But I also grieve for Catholicism. The poll a few years ago that indicated that the majority of Catholic laity do not believe in transubstantiation is not an anomaly. If you pick up the writings of the popular Catholic liturgists and theologians, you will find a decided depreciation of the eucharistic transformation of the bread and wine. What you will find instead is an emphasis on the Church as the real presence. In 1995 Catholic liturgist Bernard Cooke declared that though progress has been made with vernacular and priests facing people, "We still don't know we are the sacrament. The real presence is ourselves. Bread and wine are only instruments of Eucharist." This can, I know, be construed in an orthodox manner; but if you read these theologians closely, they really do read more like Protestants than Catholics.

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not arguing that Christ is not present in his people or anything like that, and I fully confess that the Eucharist is given to us to bring about our deification and sanctification. But what we are witnessing today in many Catholic parishes (Anglicans long ago capitulated) is the embrace of an instrumental view of the consecrated elements. Thus the decline of Eucharistic adoration, both within the Mass and outside the Mass.

Pax,
Fr Alvin Kimel+

Dear Axios,

Thank you again. Your point is well made and well taken. I appreciate your kind words about the posting. The historical and religious and theological realities that we're discussing are not simple and easily reported or explained, especially by one like me.

Yet, it is important to be accurate in the spirit of Love for what we talk about and of love for those we're talking with. It is a characteristic of the Forum that such discussions about such potentially controversial topics can take place in that kind of atmosphere.

It is a healthy and holy place to be on the net because of the people who post here and because of those who administer and moderate, I think.

So, thanks again for your truth and for your kind remarks.

Steve

Dear Fr. Kimel,

Thank you for your challenging posts. Thanks also for the referral to the books. They are powerful.

I get the impression that we are taking postions that appear to be oppositional. I am sorry if that is what comes through in my posts. It is not what I intend.

I do not see the postion of the priest as an either-or situation or a matter of dogma. In other words, I don't believe that either it's this way or that way and if it's not something horrible is happening or the Church faces destruction.

There have been other changes that were departures from what was traditional Catholic practice of the time. The history of the Sacraments provide clear examples. Another example is the change from traditional Greek to that innovation, Latin, for the language of the Liturgy. The Church has persevered to Her essential task.

I agree with the symbolic value that is present when the priest faces away from the people and they together face God. I am simply pointing out that when the priest faces the people, we face our Saving God/Man who is Immanent and yet remains Transcendent. When we lift the offerings among us He leads us to recognize our humble estate and to be in awe of the Transcendent God to whom we offer the Sacrifice.

I am not sure of the value of trying to place a priority of position on either. Perhaps it is important if it leads to decisive change.

Aside from that, I cannot find that either is a bad thing. Is one really better than the other? There are some who say yes in support of each. My concern is that this kind of oppositional behavior, no matter what its import in the future, leads some of us lay people to miss an important reality that we both understand to be true.

That is that the Eucharistic Sacrifical Act is accomplished with the priest in either position using the symbolic acts appropriate to each Liturgical Rite.

I wonder if trying to win the position of place of honor, i. e. proving that our preferred position is the better position, is really worth the divisions that the oppositional stances have led to.

In the old Code of Canon Law, there was a definition of traditional practices as those which had been used by a group or Church for forty years. The position of priest facing people has certainly met that criteria.

I point this out to simply say that no matter where it came from, until it is changed, priest facing people is legitimately used in one of our rites.

There are many symbols in the "new" Mass as there are in the "old" Mass. Since you have presented the explanation and practice of the priest facing away from the people, I hope that you'll bear with me as I share some thoughts based on what I've learned about the symbolism of the "new".

I am not asserting that the "new" is better than the "old." I'm simply pointing out that the symbolism used in the new arises from our authentic tradition and expresses the teachings of Vatican II and an ancient Western emphasis on the Incarnation.

In the "new" Mass the position of the priest and people is transparently an iconic representation/renewal of the incarnation which is also symbolized in our liturgy. It is a liturgical representation of a reality. The Body of Christ, our community, grows from the Sacrifice of Christ who is our head and through that Sacrifice is empowered to offer it back to God. The symbolism teaches us that.

The fact that it does so, does not detract one iota from the fact that we are led, through the lifting up of our Sacrifice, to the Transcendent God. In my opinion, the symbolism enriches our experience of what the liturgy is doing. The Incarnation did not conflict with the Sacrifice of Christ, it made it possible.

So, I have asked myself questions like this one over the past 40 years. What reason is there to change that symbolism?

I can't foresee what that reason will be. When the Church needs another renewal and the Pope and a Council determine what changes in symbols are needed the reason will be made clear.

I pray that that will not happen in my lifetime.

Based on what you have said, I have asked other questions. Is fear an acceptable reason to change a symbol of who we are and why we are who we are? Is the fact that our symbol is different from the symbol in the Liturgy as it is celebrated in other churches reason enough? Is the fact that we live in times when believers in non-Christian religions such as New Age are present reason enough to deny the symbolism? Are the facts that there are problems with Catechesis or with theologians expressing their truth clearly reasons enough? Is the fact that some Catholics say that they do not believe what the Church teaches about the Eucharist to be true in a faulty survey reason enough?

This is not the first time I have asked myself questions like these during discussions over 40 years. Yet each time, the answer is a resounding, "No."

The symbol expresses the reality of who we are. It is ours and about us as we are in Christ. The symbolism is a wonderful expression of the Western emphasis on the Incarnation, that in coming among us and offering worship to the Father, Christ renews us as His Body.

When it becomes necessary to change it, the Spirit will do what is needed to make that apparent. I trust that our Hierarchs and my fellow Roman Catholics will respond to His promptings. That is a Liturgical action.

The teachings that you cite to clarify the import of the position of the priest in the Tridentine Liturgy are all important. I believe that they express another different emphasis that you so clearly presented. It is not heresy, it is Catholic teaching, also.

Of course, you are entitled to hold the opinion that you hold. I'm not trying to change it. I'm simply expressing mine.

Frankly, though, I cannot forsee the Western Church abandoning the symbolism of the priest and people together facing God in each other as they raise up the Sacrifice to the Transcendent God any time soon. Based on what I've read or heard from my priest friends and others who study the trends in the Latin church, most Catholics have embraced that Liturgy. It seems unlikely that there will be a reversal. But, as must be obvious, I am not the arbiter of what will happen in the future.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

P.S.:
Father, if my words implied that you were pitting the Eastern and Western Churches against each other, I have expressed what I was trying to say extremely poorly.

(There are those who would point out that this is not a rare event. :rolleyes: )

I was trying to refresh the memory of a posting in which you suggested that East and West should come to look at and find and respect what each has. By extension I wanted to suggest that such behavior would also benefit those who take different positions on the Roman Liturgy. I am sorry for any misunderstanding in this regard.

For those who interested in reading Ratzinger's thoughts on eastward orientation, go to this link:

Ratzinger [adoremus.org]

Dear Father Alvin,

I do not know how significant this is, or how accurate my assumptions are, but there may be some liturgical proof for the people facing East during parts of the Liturgy, even if this meant turning one's back on the altar in order to do so.

In the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, if I'm not mistaken, there is a curious command chanted by one of the deacons at a certain point in the Liturgy (the beginning of the Anaphora, I think), where he says something to the effect of "Stand upright, and look towards the East!"

I am not sure of how this phrase came into their Liturgy, but surely one possibility is that this supports the view that everyone faced East, even if this meant that the priest "faced the people", who in turn "had their backs toward the priest". Do you have any thoughts on this?

Other interesting links on this subject are the following:

Vatican response to versus absidem [unavoce.org]

Facing the altar [catholicmind.com]

Another priest\'s opinion [adoremus.org]

Eamon Duffy [ad2000.com.au]

Facing East [petersnet.net]

Mor Ephrem wrote: I am aware of this liturgical command and have wondered about it myself, but have not been able to find out anything about church architecture in Egypt. Can anyone help us out?

St. Augustine's homilies typically conclude with Conversi ad Dominum, "Turn and face the Lord!" Again, I do not know about North African church architecture at this time. Could it be that the celebrant's chair was at the other end of the building, facing the altar? Or perhaps, as you suggest, the altar is sited in the west end of the basilica and the bishop is now exhorting his people to turn toward the east. I don't know.

I would love to know the answers!

Fr Alvin Kimel+

Ratzinger for Pope!

Logos Teen

Steve,

It is sometimes difficult for Pre-Vatican II to understand why Post-Vatican II generations would want a return to the Traditional Latin Liturgy. But, this very thing is going on. Many young people who have never been taught the Tridentine Latin Liturgy are finding it out on their own. Some are finding the churches of the east. Their is a strong movement of young people seeking out ancient liturgies and wanting to live a very discipline religious life. I have had the fortune to experience this myself by attending some Pre-Vatican II liturgies. I was shocked at the number of teenagers who attended those liturgies. What were missing were those teenagers� parents. It was a strange sight to see grandparents and grandchildren going to Mass without the parents.

In Colleen Carroll�s book, The New Faithful: Why Young Adults are embracing Catholicism, she address this very issue. You can hear her interview with Raymond A. of EWTN: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892288&NewList=&T1=world~over

In her book she states, �Some young believers crave tradition. Others want contemporary worship. A large majority seek more meaning in their worship, and many are finding that meaning in the Eucharist -- the case of deep, profound conversions for a great many Catholics and Orthodox Christian. This generation craves mystery and a connection to the traditions that the modern world has stripped away.�

Although, I have not read her book in the entirety I did watch the interview on EWTN. She states some shocking statistics with regards to the Latin Mass revival. Of course, we do not have to look any further than our own Anthony Dragani who was baptized a Roman Catholic (http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,6,4-12-1999/Dragani.htm). Anthony�s story is typical of the ones I have heard, �After much soul searching I became a Byzantine-rite Catholic, and found myself magnetically drawn to truly ancient forms of worship. And to my pleasant surprise, God has been leading me to spiritual riches I never dreamed possible.�

Steve, I am not going to put Vatican II down anymore, but I just wanted you get an understanding what I meant by �current trends� in my previous post. This is not to say that young people are beating down the walls of Traditional churches but that the Holy Spirit appears to be moving in this direction. I believe if you read Colleen�s book or at least listen to her interview you would get a better understanding of what I am talking about.

Dear Liberal Propagandists:

Ok, I have had it! Listen, there is NO evidence at all that versus populum was used in not only the early Church, but also in the patristic era et al! The priest is not Christ in His Nature, that is why the "People of God", to use a famous Vatican II expression, never had the priest face them in the Liturgy before the Council during the oblation; Christ faced his Apostles during the first Mass to give them the power to offer the Sacrifice when He spoke the words of Consecration as per the explanation of Trent; when the Apostles,were at the First Divine Liturgy of the Lord's Supper they faced Him because before them they had the Very God in Human Flesh!

The only time in Christian History when Versus Populum was utilized was during the Protestant Reformation! Its purpose was to remove from the minds of the faithful this "abominable notion of Sacrifice", that was also the purpose of using tables, lay people distruting the Communion, iconoclasm, simplification or abolition of vestments et al. In our Rite of Baptism the Catechumen or their Godparents, if they are an infant, turn West and spit; the West Symbolizing the three-fold Enemy. I am tired of this nonsense of trying to justify abuses simply because they are allowed to happen. Versus Populum was started, in the Latin Church using the old Rite, by maverick liturgists in the 20's and 30's at Maria Laach in Germany et al as a appreciation of the Protestant modality of celebration. It is NOT therefore a part of Catholic tradition or Orthodox tradition!
The Novus Ordo Missae is a stricking departure from Catholic practice and doctrine of the Roman Rite. Enough Said. I tried to be nice but you kept pushing your nonsense as an infallible discipline.

Administrator, I cannot see if it goes any further that we can remain in Communion with the Latins; I just cannot see it!

Sincerely in Our Lord Jesus Christ!


Robert

So, Robert, among the "Liberal Propagandists" you would be willing to include the Holy Father who also celebrates the liturgy versus populum??
And whoever said this was a matter of infallibility? Contrary to your assertion that versus populum was a conspiracy hatched at the Abbey of Maria Laach in the 20's or whatever, as I was growing up Lutheran in the 50's and 60's the pastor still led the service facing east with the congregation.

The Abbey, and its brethren in the hijacked Liturgical Movement, were utilizing the historic Protestant practice of versus populum ad experimentum, BUT many Protestant Churches kept the CATHOLIC practice of facing East and Catholic-like Altars, out of the DEMAND of the people during the Reformation, which consequently was carried on as acceptable, and Luther allowed pastors to keep it as a matter of Christian Freedom.

It was the Calvinist ministers that primarily used the versus populum position with freestanding tables during the Reformation, but even their faithful desired to return to the previous use, facing East using a stationary table against either the prominent pulpit or the eastern wall.

After the 17th-18th Centuries many historic Protestant Churches removed the altars and just had pulpits centrally located where altars were. The altar-like table was replaced with "God's Board" or a simple table/desk pulled out once a month or three times yearly for the Lord's Supper.

German Lutheran churches after this time were especially known for their simplicity. The Geneva robe and pulpit were what German Lutheranism knew for a long time. It is funny they borrowed the robe of the Geneva Calvinists; I asked a Church of the Lutheran Confession minister why it was used, and why they use it, and he said, "because at that time German Lutheranism was infected with Calvinist notions; anything other than a Geneva robe was seen as to Papist while our cousins in the Lutheran Church of Sweden kept the cassock, biretta, alb, cinture, stole, and chasuble; the CLC just kept the old Geneva Robe".

But most mainstream Lutheran bodies, as I am sure you are aware, have got on board with the post-conciliar liturgical movement. The ELCA, WELS and LCMS are I think most liturgically oriented; although most WELS and LCMS Churches still have ministers that face East for theological reasons, not just for reasons of taste et al.

Check out Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church (LCMS) of Detroit you will flip in a good way.

Here's the url :

http://www.ziondetroit.org/index.php

Anglican usage after the reign of Elizabeth I until the genesis of the Ritualists or Tractarian party was to have the Holy Table at the North End of the Church when the Holy Communion was offered with the Minister facing the people, although some Churches kept the old Altars and had to face East; I would like to refer to our beloved Fr. Kimel on this one.

For liturgy buffs like myself the Westminster Dictionary of Worship is a banquet of knowledge. I use the 1972 version; it really does a good treatment of the pre and post-conciliar Liturgical Movement and the issues of liturgical praxis of most Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Anglican, Protestant and other groups. I use this book alot in trying to get an academic treatment of these issues in a brief form.

As for your comment regarding the Pope, he is the king of diplomats. To the moderns he is a modern, to us he is a support of our traditions, to the traditionalists he tries to appear as a neo-traditionalist; he is a classic example of being all things to all people.

As one man put it John Paul is a mystery; no one knows were he stands. No one can doubt his sanctity, but we are not required to buy into his personal doctrines. As Patriarch of the Latin Church who not only was a Council Father, but is unabashedly for the Pauline Missal and for its Orthodoxy (Which mind you I am as well in regard to the Latin text and most of the ICEL Trans., although it certainly cannot be said to be superior to the old Rite) he supports it and continues to give it his Apostolic Approbation.

That notwithstanding abuses from the most easily corrected and modest to the most profane are being ALLOWED to occur; this mostly in part to a mis-application of the the Conciliar notion that National Bishops' conferences may adapt the Liturgy according to the culture and the "needs" of times, peoples, and situations; which opened the door to grievous errors. The Holy Father knows that schism is over the horizon with many bishops conferences if he doesn't show some administrative savvy, which he and his Curia have been excellent at doing, although for Orthodox Catholics this has been a scandal; most Conferences now either ignore His Holiness' mandates through the Curia, putting them in their circular file, ask for indults for abuses trying to be corrected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the new Institutio Generalis 2000, or implement only the most aenemic of reforms, such as the suppression of the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer or EEM's coming up before or during the priest's communion.

He sees the demand of the liberals, but finds within himself liberal principles as well; so he finds in them brothers, but also realizes that he must restrain them for the sake of the Church; he is seen by many as a contradiction. He is in a most difficult situation; in a way he has lost control of his Church. This is not completely his fault, Paul VI, and John XXIII began the process. We must pray for him and for a worthy Orthodox successor.

In the Mother of God,


Robert the Byzantine

Blahosloven Boh nas!

You know I think for the rest of Holy and Great Lent I will refrain from making subjects like this. I am just going to shut up, eat my piroghi, and go to bed! Good night all!

Hospodi, pomiluj!

Robert

How do you make piroghi in Lent???!!!

Fr Mark.

Jedin Svjat, jedin Hospod', Isus Christos, vo slavu Boha Otca. Amin.

Father, Bless!

Opps, you don't hehe!

So that probably means I'll come up with another subject like, "Cardinal Ratzinger: Freemason and closeted Lefebvrist." Coming to your local Theatre soon

Father, Bless!

In Our Lady of Mercy,


Robert Horvath, the GREATEST AMONG SINNERS!