Requesting an End to Ad Orientem?

An analysis of a recent column in which Bishop Edward Rice requests an end to the practice of ad orientem worship in the Diocese of Springfield - Cape Girardeau.

Image: Pope Francis celebrates Mass from the Altar of St. John Paul II, in St. Peter’s Basilica, on the 100th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s birth, May 18, 2020. Vatican News.

The following is our first opinion analysis. The Rubric remains completely faithful to the Catholic Church and the leadership of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau. We are also committed to transparency, and believe that open discussion, rooted in truth and love, will benefit the whole community. We welcome alternative perspectives into an open and respectful discussion of the most pressing issues in our Church.

We published this Q&A interview with Fr. Brian Straus on the subject of ad orientem on Friday, August 18th at 2:00 pm CST. Two hours later, the Diocese of Springfield - Cape Girardeau published its bi-weekly newspaper, The Mirror, in which Bishop Edward Rice released a column requesting an end to the practice of ad orientem. The following is an analysis of that column.

---

ad orientem: Latin for “toward the East,” ad orientem refers to the priest celebrating Mass facing the same direction as the people, some erroneously call this “priest with his back to the people” or “facing the wall”

versus populum: Latin for “toward the people,” this refers to the priest celebrating Mass on the opposite side of altar so that he is facing the people.

---

In his most recent public letter, Bishop Edward Rice (Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MO), in addition to making changes to the diocesan policies around the Traditional Latin Mass, also ‘requested’ an end to the ordinary form of the mass celebrated ad orientem. There are a handful of priests in the diocese who celebrate mass ad orientem, either on a consistent or occasional basis. The following analysis seeks to understand the reasoning for such a decision, which is controversial in its legality and prudence, in light of the situation in Southern Missouri.

The penultimate paragraph of letter reads: 

I request at this time that all priests celebrate the liturgy facing the people. As I write this column, I had no priest request permission to celebrate Holy Mass in any other way. And with the documents cited in this column, I have highlighted my rightful authority.

A Line-By-Line Analysis

The language of ‘request’ is unusual and obscure. It reflects a certain avoidance of more formal legal language, like “mandate” or “forbid,” and rather expresses what seems like a personal preference. This gives the entire letter a shading of interpersonal loyalty and relationship rather than clear-sighted legislation grounded in the appropriate texts.

The request in question is that “all priests celebrate mass facing the people,” and obliquely and passively indicates that any priest celebrating mass “ad orientem,” literally “towards the east,” with priests and people facing the same direction, ought to discontinue that practice. The presumption that the normative orientation of liturgical prayer is versus populum, “facing the people,” is taken more from convention and is simply asserted.

The subsequent sentence is quite odd in that it indicates no priest has asked his permission to celebrate in “any other way.” This overlooks the clear fact that priests are not required by the universal law of the church to ask permission to celebrate mass ‘ad orientem.’ The liturgical legislation and books leave the orientation of liturgical prayer to the discretion of the celebrant, as experts have noted. Again, the impression left is more personal and managerial than liturgical and theological.

The documents and specific passages which His Excellency cites, Sacrosanctum Conciilum and Christus Dominus, respectively describe the authority of the Church to regulate the liturgy and the authority of a bishop in his diocese. These citations certainly indicate what the bishop wishes to express, but they also indicate other things (the quotations cited here are not the sole teachings of these documents). Nor are these documents the only relevant texts to the question at hand.  The bishop will surely know that Sacrosanctum Concilium and its subsequent, post-conciliar instructions leave ad orientem worship unchanged, that is, its validity and permissibility is still in effect.

To be abundantly clear, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued the following clarification in April 2000:

“This dicastery wishes to state that Holy Mass may be celebrated versus populum or versus apsidem. Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct. There is no preference expressed in the liturgical legislation for either position. As both positions enjoy the favor of law, the legislation may not be invoked to say that one position or the other accords more closely with the mind of the Church.”

From the perspective of the Church today, the celebration of mass ad orientem is a good and holy thing.  From the perspective of the tradition of the Church, the celebration of the mass ad orientem is the overwhelming, time-honored liturgical orientation going all the way back to the apostolic age.

Why now and why this?

What are the faithful to make of this recent request? The celebration of mass versus populum, “facing the people,” as we noted above, is the obvious convention in most parishes. The number of masses in our diocese said ad orientem is very small.  Why then the ‘request’ to suppress it? What harm can be done by this small number of masses otherwise celebrated in the ordinary manner?

It seems odd to suggest that mass versus populum is to be favored for theological reasons. The celebration of mass ad orientem is on unequivocally solid ground as a near perennial tradition of the church, East and West, and reaffirmed in the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council. The theology and spirituality of ad orientem worship is deep and rich, full of practical, symbolic, and cosmic significance. This doesn’t seem to be what is going on and the recent letter is silent on the theology of either liturgical orientation.

It likewise seems strange to suggest that mass versus populum is to be favored for pastoral reasons. We have spent much time and energy going from ‘maintenance to mission’ and undertaking a ‘eucharistic revival’ in recent years. Our ordinary experience, which is in obvious and acknowledged need of revival and renewal, includes the near universal practice of mass facing the people. So one should not expect that requesting a strict maintenance of the practice is going to contribute to revival. How could doing the same thing and expecting a different result be a strategy for pastoral renewal? In fact, why would we target a practice that, at least anecdotally, has been shown to be an ingredient in renewal in many parishes.

The most obvious inference is that this recent request is personal and political. The letter appears to lay down a test of personal loyalty rather than an application of theological or pastoral logic. The celebration of mass ad orientem is one of those issues that splits along a generational divide, especially among priests. The ‘silent’ and ‘baby boomer’ generations, educated in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, in which many perennial teachings of the church were questioned in theory and overturned in practice, have come to view the widespread convention of mass facing the people as one of its marquee achievements. 

Picking Sides

This sense of achievement is rooted in a revolutionary / counter revolutionary understanding of the council. The baby boomers are the revolutionaries, they overturned an old practice, established a new practice, and are now protective of their success.

Younger generations, Gen-X, Millennials, and now Gen-Z, do not see themselves as revolutionaries who have ushered in a new era.  Their lived experience is entirely different. The predominant impression is rather one of cultural decay, loss of support and direction traditional practices once provided, and a desire to recover an imperiled cultural heritage. To the baby boomer generation, these new generations are seen as counter revolutionaries attempting to restore the old order and undo their most precious achievements.

The recent request to end a small adoption of ad orientem worship among our younger priests reads most clearly in this personal and political context. The request is an attempt to satisfy an older generation of priests who are defensive of their perceived ecclesial victories. Rather than a call to unity in a particular expression of liturgical orientation this request reads like a call to conformity with the preferences of a particular interest group.

The older generation of priests, on the doorstep of retirement from active ministry, feel provoked and ashamed. This request will feel to them as an affirmation of their theological and pastoral platform. The potential cognitive dissonance involved in a reversal of the most characteristic liturgical practices of their generation is, for some of them, almost unbearable.

The younger generation of priests, being constantly told to revive their parishes and heaped with ever-expanding assignments, will be blindsided by this ‘request’ and feel undermined, micromanaged, and dispensable. A feeling that is in strong supply. Appeals to authority, obedience, and loyalty are blunt instruments.

The Church has made it clear in her teaching that both liturgical orientations, versus populum and ad orientem, are permissible and appropriate for the Novus Ordo. The theological, pastoral, and practical choice before us is clear: Will we cordon and protect the preferences of older generations? Or will we support our younger priests in their attempts to renew the church in holiness by turning towards the Lord in the celebration of the Mass?  

Now is the time for choosing.