OK--What Is The Agenda Behind Cardinal Sarah and the "Ad Orientatem" Movement? VI

The Iconostasis at the Russicum
in Rome.  

The Roman Rite has a very unique genius.  The various Eastern Rites and the Rites of Northern Europe were highly influenced by the Court ceremonial of the Emperor or Kings, but Rome was ruled by the Pope and although the papal court developed its own ceremonial it was mainly liturgical and not imperial at least up to the Renaissance papacies.  And while the papal liturgies were more elaborate than the liturgy in a parish or monastic church—due to the presence of the pope—the rite, as practiced in the local churches maintained the Spartan dignity of its ancient character.  However, even the papal liturgies were more austere than the elaborate Gallican Rites practiced north of the Alps.  The vestments in Rome remained the simple dignified vesture of roman magistrates—the alb, the chasuble, the maniple and the stole. The deacon wore a dalmatic in place of the chasuble, though there were rituals in which the deacon too wore a chasuble. The vestments were almost invariably of white wool—the wearing of white being a sign of one’s Roman citizenship.  (Red came to be used, as it was in civil life, for the color of mourning.  It also was used for commemoration of martyrs—perhaps originally due to its connection with death—and for the Passion of the Lord.)  The basic structure of the liturgy: three processions (entrance, gifts, and communion) each followed by a collect remained clearly evident with the Readings placed between the first two and the Eucharistic prayer placed between the second and the third. The congregation stood through the entire liturgy, though there was seating for the clergy during the readings and homilies.  (In the east there were frequent prostrations in imitation of the courtly etiquette.)  A Byzantine priest who has taught liturgy in the seminary pointed out to me that the biblical model for the Roman liturgy is the gathering around the throne of the Lamb in the Book of Revelation singing the Thrice Holy Hymn while the liturgical model for the Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite is Christ the Priest entering into the heavenly sanctuary in the Letter to the Hebrews.  This makes some sense when one familiarizes oneself with the appropriate scriptural texts and the very different geist of each of the two rites. 

My chief objection to the ad apsidem position of the priest in the Roman Rite is that it bespeaks an ecclesiology in which the priest “says Mass” for the people rather than celebrating the Eucharist with them.  The ad apsidem position privatizes the Mass as the action of the priest when in fact it is the action of the entire assembly, priest and people together.  The East, with its very different geist, manages to include the faithful in the key actions of the liturgy despite the ad orientem position and even the presence of icon screens or sanctuary curtains.

The Byzantine—and other Eastern Rites—have developed a very different geist, one that is highly dialogical, than the Roman Rite.  The Byzantine Rite is a series of litanies sung among the (con)celebrant(s) at the altar, the deacon(s) standing at the Holy Doors, and the faithful.  There is a constant exchange of sung dialogue between the altar and the faithful. Even the Eucharistic Prayer contains one of these dialogical litanies.  And don’t forget the priest is not only standing with his back to the people, but the iconostasis blocks most views of the altar entirely.  (In fact, in the more strictly observant churches the Holy Doors are often closed, at least during penitential seasons, and the curtain behind them is drawn blocking any view whatsoever.)  Yet the sung interchange keeps the faithful aware that they are an integral part of the celebration. 

In the West, however the prayers are usually said by the priest alone.  Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei are sung together in a high Mass, but usually by a choir, and high Masses were rare: perhaps one a Sunday in most parishes with the remaining five or six Sunday Masses being a simple low or “read Mass” with only the priest and altar servers responding. 

So the issue for me really is this: is the Eucharist something the priest does on behalf of the people or is it something that the entire Body of Christ—the Church assembled—does together with the priest, as a sacramental presence of Christ in the assembly, does in unity.  The Tradition of the Church, as found in the Fathers of the Church, make it clear that the Liturgy is the work of the entire People of God albeit in their different functions. The versus populum position of the priest at the altar, which is the authentic heritage of the Roman Rite, preserves this in the face of a rite that would otherwise reduce the People of God from exercising their baptismal royal and priestly dignity to mere recipients of grace through the mediatorship of the ordained priest.  There is no way that I want to go back to that faulty ecclesiology, nor do I believe the vast majority of the faithful want to revert to being strangers at the Table of the Lord.  My experience of those seminarians and clergy who wish to go back is that they have a need to dominate and control others that stems from an underdeveloped psycho-sexual self-identity and want to use the Liturgy for their own aggrandizement.  They become, at least in their own minds, the indispensible mediators of grace through whom alone we can approach the Throne of Grace and without whom we would be bereft of the Love of God.  Pray for them for the judgment will be severe.

OK--What Is The Agenda Behind Cardinal Sarah and the "Ad Orientatem" Movement? V

The Bishop prepares to enter the
altar through the HolyDoors in
the Russian Rite.  

Sorry for the long time between posts--it has been a busy week with lots of summer visitors.  Hope you all are enjoying your summer as well.  

 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 16^th 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 12^th 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 8^th through the 14^th 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.