Ad Orientem: A Response to Fr. Felix Medina-Algaba

Everyone can agree on one point at least: ad orientem worship is controversial. I appreciate the thoughtful and detailed response to my Denver Catholic column on ad orientem worship by Fr. Felix Media-Algaba, “Eucharistic Orientation according to Vatican II.” Here are some brief thoughts on his critique of my column. This is the kind of dialogue and engagement that is needed to sort out what has become a persistently thorny issue. It’s extremely difficult to do any topic justice in an 800-word column, so I appreciate the opportunity to address some nuances further.

1. It is common to challenge ad orientem worship based on the institution of the Eucharist in the context of a meal. This is only referred to in passing by Fr. Medina, but it deserves to be drawn out further.

 The Last Supper was a Passover meal (of some sort), and although it provides the foundation for the Mass, it is not itself identical to the celebration of the Mass which is celebrated in commemoration of the Last Supper and the whole Paschal Mystery, as Pope Benedict wrote in his posthumously published essays: “When the Lord said “Do this,” he did not mean to exhort his disciples to the repetition of the Last Supper as such. If it was a celebration of Pesach, it is clear that, in keeping with the precepts of the Exodus, Pesach was celebrated once a year and could not be repeated several times during the year.” He further links the celebration of the Eucharist in the early Church deliberately with the morning, the rising sun: “It is instead correct to observe that already the primitive Church did not phenomenologically repeat the Supper, but rather, instead of the Supper in the evening, deliberately chose the morning for the celebration of the encounter with the Lord, which already in the earliest times was no longer called Supper, but Eucharist.”

Regardless, Jewish tables were not set up in circular fashion or with people directly facing one another during the Passover, but, rather, there are good reasons to believe it was celebrated in the first century in a “u” shape with the center open, an arrangement called a triclinium.

2. The position of the altar in St. Peter’s basilicas, as well as in other Roman churches in imitation of it, is an anomaly based on the position of the altar in relation to the relics of St. Peter and, in my opinion, is not a clear example of the celebration of the Mass deliberately versus populum. I suppose those on different sides of the debate will interpret the evidence differently. Some scholars, such as Klaus Gamber, contend that people still turned to face East in this arrangement, although this is contested by others. As Fr. Medina notes, the fact that we do have phrases directing people to “turn to the Lord” during Mass from that time and location does leave this as a valid possibility. Even if we were to concede that Roman churches and some north African churches did celebrate versus populum as a matter of debate, it would still stand as an isolated occurrence as compared to the practice of the all the churches of various rites throughout the ancient world.

3. There is no documented example in any of the various rites of the Church of the widespread celebration of the Mass versus populum until the 1960s. It is factually correct to assert that Protestants introduced Christian services deliberately designed to be celebrated versus populum, not simply as a byproduct of the arrangement of the altar but as designed specifically to address the people in its orientation. Ad orientem did survive in some Lutheran and Anglican churches, although some Anglican clergy were uncomfortable with it and even stood at the side of the altar so that it would not seem that they were supportive of the understanding of the Mass as sacrifice.

4. Experimental Masses versus populum in the early twentieth century, whether with or without permission, are not authoritative as precedents, but indicate that the change was anticipated and prepared by liturgists.

5. Passing and vague references (susceptible of various interpretations) in the 1960s and following decades regarding the orientation of the priest during Mass reinforce the point that there was no authoritative, clear, and explanatory pronouncement on the direction of the priest during Mass by the Second Vatican Council or the popes following the Council. Versus populum arose spontaneously, not in response to a directive from the Council or pope, and, therefore, had only a kind of tacit approval by Paul VI (including by his own example, of course) rather than an official and authoritative one. The situation was undeniably ambiguous (and, therefore, remains so to this day). To give an anecdotal example, my own priest mentor from high school, told me that against the hesitations of his bishop, he began facing the people after reading about it in The New York Times.

The Congregation for Rites stating a preference for the altar to be freestanding does not constitute a direct ordinance to celebrate Mass versus populum. The current GIRM  (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) does seem to have a statement directing celebration versus populum (although even this has been interpreted in contrasting ways), while also speaking of the priest turning to face the people at particular moments of the Mass, which does not include the Eucharistic prayer (which would seem to imply ad orientem, for why else would the priest have to turn to face the people).  

In contrast to this issue, Pope St. Paul VI took pains to explain the suppression of the minor orders, the reestablishment of the permanent diaconate, the rearrangement of the breviary, and changes to the universal calendar, to give some examples of changes to Catholic practices. No such explanation was given for Mass versus populum.

 6. Traditionis Custodes concerns the celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of 1962 and does not address the celebration of the Mass of Paul VI ad orientem. This is the reason why I remarked it is odd for bishops to react to the motu proprio by limiting the celebration of the Mass ad orientem since this practice is nowhere mentioned by it. In practice, it may seem that the Mass of Paul VI is intrinsically linked to versus populum, but since this has never been stated directly and authoritatively, it falls back to a recent custom over the longstanding and ancient practice of the Church. My own experience with ad orientem began with the Byzantine Liturgy, not the Latin Mass, showing that this is a broader issue than just a debate over the liturgical changes following Vatican II.

No matter one’s preference, versus populum is undeniably more people-focused in its orientation, rather than reinforcing a common direction for both priest and people toward the Lord.