The Bishop prepares to enter the altar through the HolyDoors in the Russian Rite. |
Let me
begin by saying that I don’t have a problem with the ad orientem (or even ad
absidem) position of celebrating the Liturgy where it comprises an
authentic liturgical tradition. From an
aesthetic point of view (as opposed to a theological/ecclesiological
perspective), I even prefer it. I often attend or even concelebrate Liturgy in
the Byzantine Rite in which the liturgy is invariably celebrated with the
celebrant’s back to the people—but for legitimate reasons.
First of all let’s distinguish between ad orientem and ad absidem. All ad orientem liturgies are ad ad absidem but not all ad absidem liturgies are ad orientem. Ad
orientem refers to the worship space itself faced eastwards towards the
rising Sun. This was an ancient custom
prevalent through the east from at least the fourth century and through the
west—excepting Rome and a few other places south of the Alps that never adopted
the practice. The idea of ad orientem is for the worshippers to
face the rising Sun, symbol of the Resurrected Christ, as the Eucharist was
celebrated at Sunday Dawn. Curiously in
some places, again particularly in Italy and notably in Ravenna and Lucca,
while the churches were usually oriented, the older custom, drawn from Rome,
with the priest facing the people over the altar (Mass versus populum) was retained as we can see at San Vitale and at San
Apollinaire in Classe. Indeed even when
one examines the remaining pre-Vatican II altars in the Cathedral of Florence,
Siena, Orvieto, one notices that they were all constructed after the liturgical
Reforms of the Council of Trent to replace older free-standing altars. This is no proof that ad orientem celebration was only introduced to much of Italy in the
late 16th century, but it is a significant indication that the
question should be studied in more depth.
If the purpose of the ad orientem position being for priest and faithful alike to face
the rising sun, where the worship space itself is not oriented it makes
absolutely no sense for the priest to face away from the congregation unless it
is part of the tradition of the rite itself.
Such a position is not ad orientem
but ad apsidem (facing the rear
wall of the church, the apse). As shown
in earlier postings, the traditional position of the presider in the Roman Rite
is to face the people over the altar. Since
the sun rises in the east, the concept of some mythical “liturgical east” is
patently ridiculous. East is east—where
the sun rises, any other point on the compass is either North, West, or
South.
As I have pointed out in previous posts the
practice of ad orientem has been of
very ancient origins in the East. We need remember that Sicily and much of
Southern Italy (as far north as Naples) and the area around Ravenna was under
Byzantine Rule until the 12th century. The Greek Rite was used in the churches of
this area. In northern Europe ties
between the Court of Charlemagne and the Emperor at Constantinople introduced
much Greek ceremonial into both the royal court as well as into the
Church. Liturgy developed far more
elaborately in Northern Europe, particularly in France than it did in Rome
which kept to its simple, almost Spartan, liturgical tradition. The various dioceses of France, Britain, the
Rhineland, the Low Countries all developed their own particular customs over
the 8th through the 14th centuries. These rites are
collectively known as “Gallican Rites.” The Spanish church as well developed its own
unique and elaborate rites. Most of
these rites were renounced in favor of the 1570 Missal of Pius V after the
Council of Trent, however many customs—the number of candles on the altar, the
use of specific liturgical colors—were not only retained but found their way
into the Missal of Pius V replacing older Roman practices. Before the revisions of Pius V, missals for
the various rites concentrated mostly on the liturgical texts and often did not
include detailed rubrics; at the time of the Council of Trent, however,
rubrical conformity became a real priority and the lack of detailed rubrics in
the Roman books was supplemented by rubrics borrowed from the various medieval
rites. Also Pius V himself was a
Dominican and the Dominicans had a very elaborate and detailed rite,
predisposing the pontiff towards abandoning Roman simplicity in favor of a more
baroque approach to worship that matched the architecture of the churches being
built—or renovated—in Rome at the time.
When May 24, 2003 Cardinal
Castrillon Hoyos celebrated the Tridentine Mass in the Basilica of Saint Mary
Major, the first celebration according to the Missal of Pius V since its being
superseded by the Missal of Paul VI in 1970,many of the pilgrims who had come
were outraged because the Mass was celebrated versus populum and not ad
apsidem (remember, Saint Mary Major’s faces north, not east, thus not ad orientem). What they totally ignored is that it is not
possible to celebrate ad apsidem at
Saint Mary Major’s as the altar stands over the open confessio that leads down to a niche containing the presumed manger
in which the Christ child was placed after this birth and upon which the altar
is built to enshrine. Consequently the
high altar is approachable from only three sides. Indeed the papal altars in all four major
basilicas are all designed for versus
populum celebration and even before Vatican II, the popes celebrated facing
the congregation over the altar.
I am not opposed to ad orientem or even ad apsidem celebrations in general.
Certainly in those rites to which they an inherent part of the tradition
they make sense. Indeed in some Eastern
Rites that have latinized to the point of versus
populum celebrations, ad orientem
should be restored. When permission is
granted for one or another of the north-European rites: Sarum, York, Rite of
Paris, for example, it makes sense to used the ad apsidem position. The
same would go for the medieval rites of the religious orders—the Dominicans,
the Carmelites, the Carthusians. On the
other hand these rites are meant not for pastoral care of the faithful but are
used out of historical or antiquarian curiosity and should be fairly
limited. But where the Roman Rite should
be used, it should be used in its integrity which includes versus populum celebration.
Also, thank you for your articles on this. They have been helpful.
ReplyDeleteIn this discussion, I am reminded of a central principle of reform laid down by Vatican II in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: "In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community (21)." I say this because I often attend Mass in the early morning at a small chapel with a bona fide ad orientem altar which the celebrant faces because of the small space, and the sun is rising while we are gathered there. Frankly, I don't think the solar symbolism makes one bit of difference to anybody even if it were explained. But I will say that there is something to the whole congregation facing the same direction -- however, this makes an impact because the small setting does not give the impression that the priest has his back to the rest of us or is remote from the congregation. Under such circumstances, I can see its usefulness; outside of that, forget it.
ReplyDelete