As and aside, and not to start a fight, but as someone born into the OF, with no EF experience until about ten years ago, I wonder how much of the EF I would have struggled more to understand without having a solid OF foundation and formation.

To make a comparison, I learned chant after already being completely proficient at reading five-line notation (not that that's at all necessary, but it happened to be "where I was"). In any event, there was a period where I would read four-line notation and "translate" in my mind into the notation I knew. Similarly, when I first attended the EF, for the majority of parts of the Mass which are common to both EF and OF, I would "translate," e.g. "Oh, the gradual, this is like the Responsorial Psalm." (Now we all know it's much different from the Responsorial Psalm, but knowing in what very basic ways it was the same was helpful to my appreciating those difference.)

I think it might be easier to get some OF attendees who might be wary or reluctant to attend the EF to describe it in terms of the OF. I know this would be potentially heretical to some EF communities, but it was what my mind did naturally at first, and greatly assisted my early understanding of the EF.

But '65 was not, to my understanding, a new form of the Mass. I ununderstand it to be an application of SC to the extant Missal.

Ok, but look at how many important elements are missing!

I agree, SkirpR that it might be helpful for die-hard OF's to see links to their own form, but that can be no more than a starting point.

I began a presentation for youths a few weeks ago by saying, "How many of you completely understand God?" Good, I said, because God is a mystery, and when we encounter a mystery it is helpful to be properly prepared. Hence, the language and symbols of the Mass teach us that we encounter a mystery.

How many of you, I continued, would want the driver of your family's minivan to be constantly facing you, the passenger, instead of watching where the car was going? Good, because since the prayers of Mass are addressed to God, and since the tabernacle houses the presence of God, it makes logical sense for the priest to face God. He's not ignoring us out of some sense of superiority, but out of an obligation to make sure we get where we should go.

One father objected, saying that this was equally true of the OF -- and I conceded that it SHOULD be, but too often isn't.

@cgz,

Wow, what an amazing teaching you gave those youth! If they bought what you were offering, by now it must have dawned on them that Pope Francis has not even once faced God during the celebration of Mass since he became Supreme Pontiff.

Good, because since the prayers of Mass are addressed to God, and since the tabernacle houses the presence of God, it makes logical sense for the priest to face God.

The prayers of the Mass are addressed to The Father.
The tabernacle houses the True Presence of The Son.

I'm pretty sure there's a good way to argue for ad orientem without confusing the doctrine of the trinity or (what I see more often) making paganistic statements that one is "facing God" while turned in one direction and not while turned in the other.

I'm also pretty sure one should not teach children such disparaging opinions about versus populum celebration.

OK, this objection to the term "versus Deum" is a fair one. What sort of longevity does the term have; what kind of roots; and does it have patristic or biblical support as does the concept of liturgical "east"?

And who uses this term, anyway?

Oh -- one of my favorite thinkers does.

This is a very surprising document

I also suspect (but don't know) that there may be more archaeological evidence for the readings in the early Church to have been done versus populum than the Canon, etc.

I believe Canon O'Connell was a proponent of fairly radical reforms, and so very likely from his point of view the changes were "minor".

Opinion survey:

If the entire reform completed by ~1970, had encompassed only the things in this document, plus a reform of the lectionary (not necessarily the one we got) and a reform of the calendar (again not necessarily the one we got), would it have really been a terrible thing?

I'm not arguing against the symbolic worthiness of ad orientem celebration. As far as I can tell, I "have the mind of the church" on the matter (which is to say- I am conflicted).

Yes.

What I am against (and I THINK Ratzinger was also against) is the following:
-the idea that really, a versus populum celebration is somehow "turning away from God."
-insulting the way most Catholics experience Mass being celebrated
-fanaticism

If versus populum is, in and of itself, "turning away from God," this sounds so much like the (untrue) argument made by those who welcomed the introduction of versus populum celebration that ad orientem celebration is a priest "turning his back on his congregation."

Both seem like fanatical and silly representations to me.

What I am against ... is the following: the idea that really, a versus populum celebration is somehow "turning away from God." --Adam

Sometimes changing one’s orientation unavoidably means turning away from something else. Requiring the readings to be said versus populum meant ending the practice of saying them towards the liturgical east and north. The old liturgical meaning was lost and a new one created based on the reader and assembly facing one another. This was not at all necessitated by didactic considerations since the assembly could hear the readings regardless of the reader’s orientation.

The effect on the liturgy is substantial. In the old setup, the assembly is invited via the liturgy to “actively participate” in proclaiming the gospel to all the nations, a proclamation made towards the liturgical north, historically the lands of the barbarian kingdoms. In the new setup, the assembly passively listens to the gospel which is directed at them.

Also, as a purely subjective matter, having the readings addressed specifically to the assembly helps reshape the liturgy into “a bunch of people talking to each other” as opposed to “a bunch of people talking to someone else.”

One will also remember that there exists the possibility of having the Blessed Sacrament reserved in a chapel and the tabernacle not present on the altar, but I don't have the energy to formulate an opinion on this.

I respect those who are drawn to ad orientem, but I don't know why ad orientem and versus populum needs to be an either/or choice? Can't we find the wisdom and value in both? I no longer have the patience to deal with a) people who believe there's nothing wrong with how the OF is typically celebrated, nor b) people who believe the reforms that gave us the OF have no value.

Even the EF can be celebrated vp, and in many Roman basilicas ao is vp.

Including St. Peter's, yes?

Interestingly my children also have asked why some priests turn their back to God. We only attend the EF, and the two parishes we regularly attend also celebrate the OF ad orientem. They also both have their tabernacle directly behind the high altar.

A couple of clarifications...
Traditionally the EF has been celebrated ad orientem (towards the east), some books suggest that this is because of an early belief that Christ will return from the East.

Of course many altars and even churches are orientated in such a way as they do not face eastward, so there is an idea of a liturgical east.

A number of Roman Basilica, due to either Geography or the reuse of an earlier building are oriented the wrong way and so in these case ad orientem is also versus populum.

Ad Deum is could be a misunderstanding of ad orientem, or perhaps the result of many people describing the priest turning his back on the people to celebrate the sacrifice ad oriented.

Ad apsidam (towards the apse) is another term that I have heard used.

Also, one thing that has always struck me:

This issue seems to be one of those where the "two sides" hold what I think should be the other one's opinion.

Ad orientem strikes me as illustrating that the Priest comes to God as a representative of the people. He faces the Tabernacle, which houses the presence of Christ, and prays to God the Father, almost literally "through" the Son. He stands at the head of the people, but as one of their number.

On the other hand, when facing towards the people, it seems to me that the priest better displays his role as the person of Christ. He faces the congregation, acting as God's minister to us, as Christ does. This is reinforced by the visual similarity between the priest (especially when standing with arms outstretched) and the image of Christ on the crucifix directly above and behind him.

And yet.... generally speaking.... proponents of each of these orientations tend to have a conception of the priesthood (and his role in the Mass) that seems more consistent with the other orientation's apparent (to me) symbolism.

Also, there is no evidence that Catholic priesthood of Rome consisted of pagan priests who were just kinda doing the same thing except for a different god name.
Adam, are you channeling some 19th century Protestant? The priesthood emerges from the episcopate, refers to the injury of the apostles, and finds its origin in the levitical priesthood of the Temple in Jerusalem.

I'm not disputing the theological basis for the Christian priesthood. Nor do I think that there was nothing like priests and liturgy prior to Constantine.

But really- do you think it is even remotely likely that some (or perhaps many) pagan priests WERE NOT converted and became Christian priests? You think that this wouldn't have had an effect on the way public liturgy was celebrated?

The Roman Empire had a well-developed state religion, with its own bureaucracy and habits. You don't think that it survived its own Baptism? You think that when Christianity became legal all the Bishops and Presbyters came out of hiding and the pagan priests stepped aside, handed over the building keys and alarm codes and said, "Good luck!"?

That doesn't even make any sense.

You don't have to mythologize history in order to believe that Catholic cultic practices are right and just.

I don't think there were very many pagan priests by the fourth century, but I suppose some of them might have converted, and I hope so.

As for the rest, no, no, yes, yes, yes, and yes. And it may be part of our founding myth but it is also history.

no, no, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

sorry... i'm not sure which these were directed towards

I am a staunch advocate for facing liturgical east. I think the rubrics of the Mass ought to be reformed to insist upon "ad orientem" posture. I believe that the introduction of Mass facing the congregation is the greatest error of the postconcilliar reform and the source of many further abuses.

That said, I find the argument from "the priest turned his back on Christ" to be bordering on ridiculous. No, not bordering, but the capital of Ridiculousville. It's no different from "the priest turned his back on us" coming from the progressive circles. By this logic, the priest ought to process away from the altar by stepping backwards, lest he commit the (apparently horrible) offense of "turning his back on Christ." Of course Christ is present in the tabernacle. He is also present in the gathered assembly, corporately and individually. He is present in the proclaimed Word. He is present upon the altar in the consecrated Species. It's a question of relevance. The Mass is NOT offered to the tabernacle, or to its Resident. It is offered to God the Father. The "Eastward" orientation IS superior because it better communicates that, but the tabernacle ought to have nothing to do with it.

I guess I don't mind too much if people use faulty arguments to agitate for ad orientem, as long as it happens. For my own part, I adhere strongly to Adam's progressive argument about. The ad orientem posture casts the priest in an egalitarian manner. He is one of us, acting with us. As opposed to Mass facing the congregation, in which the priest is a superior, a speaker and actor to whom alone we owe all attention and honor. I suppose the maps others draw may place MY argument as the capital of Ridiculousville. I guess that's ok, too, as long as we're both arguing for the same good.

@Gavin

By this logic, the priest ought to process away from the altar by stepping backwards, lest he commit the (apparently horrible) offense of "turning his back on Christ."

There are sedevacantist chapels where the laity must file out backward for this very reason.

The Mass is NOT offered to the tabernacle, or to its Resident. . . . The "Eastward" orientation IS superior because it better communicates that, but the tabernacle ought to have nothing to do with it.

Exactly. I more than suspect that one of the motivations some reformers had for moving tabernacles after the Council was to correct distorted ideas about the importance of the tabernacle, just like the chalice was withheld from the laity to correct distorted ideas about the importance of reception under both species. To hear some people talk about it, you'd think it was theologically impossible to have Mass at an altar without the reserved Sacrament (the majority of Catholic history counting for nothing, I suppose).

The ad orientem posture casts the priest in an egalitarian manner. He is one of us, acting with us.

This points, I think, to the big potential problem with ad orientem. It can be this way -- and it certainly ought to be. But the priest can also be facing away from the people in a fashion that conveys that he simply has no connection with them -- and they have no particular connection with the liturgical action at the altar -- but rather that he is just engaged in a private affair which doesn't happen to involve anybody else.

I have been to more than a few low Masses with this aesthetic, where the priest and servers sneak out of a sacristy door up to the altar before you realize it, do their stuff for 25 minutes without so much as casting a glance at the people gathered there ... eventually Communion is offered ... and then they slip wordlessly back into the sacristy, not to be seen again. When pre-Conciliar popes -- and they were no dummies -- decried the "dumb, mute audience" effect at Mass, this is what they were talking about. I'm pretty sure it amounts to a large part of what made many people dislike ad orientem. It is a double-edged sword: done with the right mentality, it can convey profoundly that we are being led to Christ by someone who is, as you say, "one of us"; with the wrong mentality, that we are dimly tolerated onlookers as someone who is definitely not "one of us" goes about some important business.

I have thought about this off and on for some time, and I wish I had better, more concrete ideas for positive action here. I suspect that something as simple as paying due attention to the congregation before and/or after Mass could make a substantial improvement in how the ad orientem posture during the rite itself is viewed.

The decision to build new churches in such a way as to celebrate facing the people seems like a question of opinion and (to some extent) theological orientation (ha ha). Given the directives from Rome over the last 50 years, I think any instance of it is understandable.

But (and I say this as someone who prefers versus populum) the desecration of existing sanctuaries- in some case, ancient sanctuaries of historical and cultural notability - in order to avoid ad orientem at seemingly any cost - strikes me as a great tragedy, the total sum of which (across countless churches throughout Christendom) rivals the loss caused by the Puritans in England or the Taliban in Afghanistan.

(Warning, personal opinion!)

To be frank, I have only seen very few instances where I don't mind versus populum; and that is with priests who truly understand to a significant degree the real ars celebrandi of the Mass. The problem that I think most of us encounter most often is the 'talk-show' priest who gives a very affected reading of the rites, either in an overly chatty way or in an overly dramatic way (THIS!!!!!!!! [dramatic pause] is MY!!!!!!!!!!!! BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!); and I do have to say that this, in our televisual age, is more likely to occur at liturgical celebrations versus populum, where the priest feels like he needs to "engage" the congregation. Ad orientem has a way of almost 'hiding' the person of the priest, simply because he can't make eye contact with anyone, and therefore cannot be pressured into feeling like he has to 'perform' for them.

On a side note, my pastor has celebrated Mass ad orientem (OF) and prefers it because he feels that he can focus more on what he's about because he's not destracted by the little kids running down the centre isle with Mommy running after them during the Canon; however 98 percent of all our Masses are versus populum simply because he fears ruffling any feathers in the presbyterate.

Versus populum is one of those things (like concelebration, lay readers, EMHCs, and so on) that whilst in theory may be benificial, has oft proved in practice to be seriously misguided, and realy a distraction during and detraction from the sacred liturgy.

Also the denuding of sanctuaries after Vatican II was realy, as Adam noted, a great loss of art, history, culture, etc., as were the outcome of many other reforms after the council. It bothers me no end to think of the work of men like AWN Pugin, Gueranger (who should be a saint), Mary Berry, and so many others to tried to restore good liturgical practice, music, appointments, architecture, etc., and their principles go down the tubes in favour of polyester ponchos and 'art' that looks like it came from the dustbin of the first grade art room.

I could go on and on, but right now I feel that I should shut up.