I just read an interesting exchange between Cardinal Ratzinger and a Dominican named Pierre-Marie Gy which touched on the subject of orientation in the liturgy. Gy's critique of Ratzinger's book The Spirit of the Liturgy, and Ratzinger's response to his criticisms were recently published in English in Antiphon, the journal of the Society for Catholic Liturgy. (Also recently published in Antiphon 11.2 [2007] was a small piece entitled "Love and Self-Gift: Sacrifice in St Augustine's City of God," by John Joy.)
It is often interesting in polarizing debates to see in what terms the respective positions are cast. For example, the debate over abortion is usually cast in terms of "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life." The term "pro-choice" is [deliberately?] deceptive both in that it (1) implies that those who are pro-life are also anti-choice, and in that it (2) disguises the fact that those who are pro-choice are actually pro-death.
Pro-lifers have tried for years to fight this deceptive terminology by recasting the debate more accurately and unambiguously in terms of "pro-life" vs. "pro-death," or "pro-abortion."Similarly, the debate over on which side of the altar the priest should stand when offering the Mass is usually framed in terms of "Mass facing the people" vs. "Mass with the priest's back to the people." The Latin terms used are only slightly less weighted: Mass is offered either versus populum [turned toward the people] or ad orientem [toward the East].
Nevertheless, the term "versus populum" is [deliberately?] deceptive both in that it (1) emphasizes the fact that the priest's back is to the people when he offers Mass ad orientem, implying that this is somehow disrespectful to the people, and in that it (2) disguises the fact that Mass celebrated versus populum is actually celebrated with the priest's back to God [whether literally in the tabernacle, liturgically on the crucifix, or symbolically in the East].
This debate should also be recast in more accurate terms: Mass is offered either versus populum [turned toward the people] or versus Deum [turned toward God]; either with the priest's back to the people, or with his back to God. When the deceptiveness of language is thus exposed one has only to remember Jeremiah 32:33-34: "They have turned to me their back and not their face; and though I have taught them persistently they have not listened to receive instruction. They set up their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to defile it."
5 comments:
Just to stir this pot a little more, I will throw in my two cents worth.
It seems to me that 'versus Deum' could be a little deceptive as well, as God is certainly present in His people i.e. the Body of Christ. Of course, He is present differently in His people as compared with His presence in the reserved species, in the crucifix or in the East, yet it is still certainly a form of presence. So it seems that using 'versus Deum' versus 'versus populum' could slant the discussion in the opposite direction (albeit a direction we would both agree with) and so perhaps not help things so much. The most neutral terminology I've come up with are the cumbersome yet descriptive "facing the same direction as the people" and "facing the people." But I'm sure something much better could be formulated.
And yes, the puns in this post are intended.
God bless and Happy Easter,
Mark
P.S. Congratulations on your publication!
I understand the logic employed in saying that versus populum involves the priest having his back toward God - but that's a very loaded claim. Cardinal Medina Estévez, as prefect of the CDW, addresses it in his answer to a question about the orientation of the priest: "One must distinguish between the physical position particularly in relation to the communication between the various members of the assembly and the internal spiritual orientation of all concerned. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is toward the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesum Christum, as representative of the whole Church. Furthermore, the Church, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely orientated versus Deum in its first spiritual movement."
http://www.unavoce.org/protocol2036.htm
I recognize that you will likely take exception to the cardinal's premise that celebration versus populum is "legitimate and often advisable." I fully agree with you that celebration ad orientem better manifests the sacrificial action that is taking place, but I would argue that giving it the term versus Deum would be more polemical than accurate.
My congratulations, too, on your second appearance in Antiphon!
I might take exception to the good cardinal's statement that it is a "grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is toward the community". The cardinal must surely know that the community believes what it prays, so it surely cannot be a grave error, for the community at least, to imagine what the orientation is telling it. I had thought that one point of our understanding of sacraments is that we do not rely solely on "his spiritual attitude" to communicate what is going on.
But of course, at least in the US, versus populum would have a ring of 'against the people'. . .
So, whatcha gonna do? . . .
Alright, alright, the terms I suggested just slant the discussion in the other direction. True enough to a certain extent. My point was/is polemical though: my point is that the slur so often directed at the offering of Mass ad orientem, namely that the priest says Mass with his back to the people, is quite misleading, and one might simply point out that Mass offered versus populum is in point of fact offered with the priest’s back to God, as I said, whether literally and substantially in the tabernacle, or at least liturgically and symbolically.
As for God’s presence in the “gathered community,” there is of course some truth to the claim, which is then generally distorted out of all due proportion. WOC added the important qualifier above: this is a very different kinf of presence than Christ’s substantial presence in the Eucharist, and even from the liturgical/symbolic presence of God in the crucifix/East. To focus on the people as the locus of God’s presence in worship can only encourage the all too widespread self-worship in which so many “gathered communities,” indulge.
And I have to agree with big daddy’s point regarding Cardinal Medina Estevez’s statement. Of course, one cannot accuse a priest of adopting a spiritual orientation toward the people because he is literally facing them; he could and should maintain a proper spiritual orientation toward God. But lex orandi lex credendi. The point of physical orientations in the liturgy is to foster corresponding spiritual orientations.
Post a Comment