MUCH ADO ABOUT 'AD ORIENTEM'
All the unseemly to-do about the Pope celebrating Mass 'ad orientem' in public for the first time last Sunday is an indication of how much the Church has neglected liturgical instruction of the faithful before and after Vatican-II. Perhaps things will begin to change with all the groundwork laid by this teaching Pope, but meanwhile, Vatican Radio thought it opportune to interview Mons. Guido Marini about the fallout from the Sistine Chapel Mass.
Translated from the
Italian service of
Last Sunday, the Pope said Mass in the Sistine Chapel using its own built-in-altar. This meant that in many parts of the Mass, he was facing the altar and not the congregation.
The 'innovation' had been pre-announced and explained by the Office of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations but despite that, the reporting on the Mass still used terms like 'pre-conciliar' or that the "the Pope said Mass with 'his back turned to the people'.
Fabio Colgrandi spoke to Mons. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies, about the reactions.
MONS. MARINI: First of all, it is important to point out the orientation that the liturgical celebration has always been called on to have. I refer to the centrality of the Lord, the Savior crucified and resurrected. This orientation determines the interior disposition of the entire assembly, and consequently, even the external celebratory form.
Placing the Cross in the center of the altar conveys this fundamental element of liturgical theology. We can look at particular circumstances, as for instance, because of the artistic features of the sacred place and its singular beauty and harmony, it becomes more appropriate to use the old altar, where the proper liturgical orientation can be observed.
And that's what happened in the Sistine Chapel. This is something that is allowed by the post-conciliar liturgical norms.
Public opinion seemed to have been much impacted by this gesture, in which the Pope turned his back on the assembly. There are those who see this as a return to the past, and outright closing-off the assembly on the part of the celebrant. What is the true meaning of this liturgical practice?
In the celebrations that follow this modality, it is not about the priest turning his back to the people, but about orienting himself with the people toward the Lord. Instead of 'closing the door to the assembly,' the priest is opening it and leading them to the Lord.
The Eucharistic celebration is not about us looking at each other, but all of us looking towards him who is our 'East', the Savior.
It is also important to point out that the total time during which the priest has 'his back turned to the people' is relatively brief. For instance, the entire liturgy of the Word takes place, as in the Novus Ordo, with the celebrant facing the people, indicating the dialog of salvation that God carries on with his people.
So, this is not at all a return to the past, only the recovery of a celebrative norm which does not in any way take issue with the instructions of Vatican-II.
There are also those who, following the debate provoked by Summorum Pontificum, read some gestures by Benedict XVI as an intention to abandon the post-conciliar liturgical reform. What would you say to deductions?
That they are just incorrect deductions and interpretations, both about the Motu Proprio as well as all of Benedict's Magisterium on the liturgy.
The liturgy, like everything else in the life of the Church, is about continuity, or I would say, development within continuity. This means that the Church goes forward along its historical path without losing sight of its roots and its traditions .
This could mean, in some cases, the recovery of certain precious and important elements which may have been lost or forgotten in the course of time. or that time has made less luminous because of losing its authentic significance.
I think the Motu Proprio worked in this direction, reaffirming with great clarity that there is continuity without rupture in the liturgical life of the Church.
So this is not a question of a return to the past, but of enriching the present with a view to the future.