As someone who attends the TLM, I've never really thought of it as the priest having his back turned toward us, but rather leading us to Calvary where the sacrifice of the mass is about to take place and then offering himself up in persona Christi as a true and living sacrifice to the Father on our behalf.
@@megrose711What the writer means is that it is Jesus Christ who offers his humanity to God with the priest indirectly doing that as in Persona Christi.
@@davidoneill9244- that's true, it IS so much more than that. But these are points of reverence, traditions accumulated by Western Catholics that show how we gear our mind and ready ourselves for worship. The Novus Ordo didn't get rid of these, bishops did when the New Order of the Mass was introduced. The thing about Novus Ordo is that it's extremely fluid, and many portions are optional or left up to an individuals prerogative, and this comes with some benefits and drawbacks. Slightly over half of the prayers of the Novus Ordo are technically optional, and so mass length when you travel can vary wildly, could anywhere between 45 minutes and two hours, not including the Homily. Also, I think that modern priests dropping so much traditional reverence in place for late 20th century contemporary worship was just not a good thing. I think both Modernists and traditionalists would and SHOULD reconsile this, by viewing the Novus Ordo as a sort of slightly abridged Tridentine Mass, but in YOUR language. I think it would be good to make the Novus Ordo norm Ad Orientum again, it was for a couple of years. I also think bringing back parish chants, and developing a Catholic culture of not skipping over as many optional prayers would be really cool. These things I don't think should be solely associated with the Tridentine Mass (or called the Latin Mass/TLM) and that these things so universal in the Roman Rite only a few decades ago are being for some reason argued over very troubling. What reason is there to not treat the Novus Ordo as an understandable traditional Liturgy? Novus Ordo doesn't say anything about guitars and tamberines, or about shoddy 1970s chique aesthetic, but these things are unfairly pinned onto the Novus Ordo because bishops of that time wanted to add their *personal* flavor to their masses.
@davidoneill9244 yes, and easier to get to, with these sacred accessories.. It was very arrogant and sixtiesish - ideological naivety -to sweep everything away. And Pope Francis still has his head firmly in this sixties utopian bubble. It's backward and dumbed down, like the Liturgy for the last 50 years.
Even though I grew up with the priest facing the people, I've had a few with the priest facing the altar and I find I prefer that the priest face the altar.
Ad Orientem has much more beautiful symbolism and even makes the design of churches infinitely easier. Everyone is in pilgrimage to the same direction - the Holy Sacrament celebrated in the Holy Mass; no one else is more important or deserves more attention and focus than Him.
Its how the jewish priests in the bible worshiped. To the sanctuary, not the people. And it was always towards to sanctuary, until last 70 years. Tells you something about the times.
I attended and graduated from a Catholic university close to 40 years ago. We were required to take religion classes. In one of them, which was taught by a priest, we were told that the reason Vatican II declared that the priest should face the people was because the people wanted to see what was transpiring and almost considered it their right to do so. Facing the alter blocked the view of the people and they felt they were unable to fully participate in the Mass. In addition, in the Tridentine Mass, the transubstantiation was performed by the priest bending low over the host and chalice and literally whispering the prayer making it impossible for the people to see or hear it. That sentence 'the liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the eucharistic synaxis' sounds a bit like Protestantism to me. Many protestant denominations have what is called 'the priesthood of the believer' which is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers which states that all believers in Christ share in his priestly status, eliminating any special classes. This claims to derive from the Bible, but was elaborated in the theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin. I also think over the last 45 years or so, the Church has been divided into factions of liberal and conservative. John Paul II pushed the envelope of Vatican II to make further reforms which, in MY opinion, moved us further away from traditional Catholicism. Pope Benedict XVI was slowly going back to more conservative and traditional doctrine and ways and even encouraged the Tridentine Mass. Now, Pope Francis has swung back the other way and I believe has forbidden churches from celebrating the Tridentine Mass other than those who already have permission from their bishops to do so. I love the Tridentine Mass. Personally, I think it's more spiritual and I feel closer to God and Jesus Christ when attending one.
We are all baptized as priests, prophets, and kings in Jesus Christ. This is of course different from the ministerial priesthood of ordained men, but the idea the laity sharing in Christ's priesthood through his Passion and Resurrection, which necessitates spiritual sacrifice (the greatest of which is the Holy Mass) is hardly a Protestant idea. Obviously our role in this spiritual sacrifice is different from that of ordained priests, though. Anyway, this might not even be what you're referencing. God be with ye! :)
In the Syro Malabar Catholic Church (one of the eastern catholic churches of East Syriac liturgical origin established in India ) we have the liturgy of the word facing people and liturgy of eucharist ad orientum and the final blessing part facing people . The harmony of both priest coming down facing people for liturgy of word and climbing up towards the altar ad orientum celebrating the eucharist is so beautiful 🙏🏻✝️
All my life I had the priest facing the people. I am 50 years now and started to slowly grow into TLM. I think it is most reverent, mystical and beautiful.
I’m just started RCIA but I have been attending Catholic masses for around 6 months and I have been lucky enough to attend the new mass as well as low and high Latin masses and they are all beautiful. I cannot wait until I am confirmed and can participate in the Eucharist. Thank you for your videos father. God bless.
@jacaro2012 There are people who can explain it better, but I'll try. High Mass is a more formal Mass said on feast days, weddings, etc, and on Sunday in some churches. It has incense, etc. Low Mass is the "usual Mass." The Old Mass is the traditional Latin Mass (TLM,) said in Latin except for the homily and announcements. The priest faces the altar toward the Bread and Body of Christ, with his back to the parishioners, unless he is speaking to them. The New Mass (Novus Ordo) was approved in the early '60's. It is in the language of the congregation, and the priest faces the parishioners, with his back to the Body and Blood. Please try both and see which one you like. Generalizing here, but the TLM tends to have more young people and young families. The New Mass tends to have more older people. I hope this helps. Welcome to the church, and may God bless you and yours.
As a young Syro Malabar catholic, ive grown up with a compromise of both in that the liturgy of the Word is facing the people and the liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrating facing the Tabernacle. I find this to be so powerful in that the priest offers the sacrifice of Christ in such intimacy with Christ that you can't help but think that heaven and earth are meeting in this magnificent sacrament.
How right you are. It is right & proper that the readings - which are for our edification - should (like the sermon) be given facing the people BUT the Holy Sacrifice should be the priest LEADING the people towards God & it is difficult leading someone when - in effect - going backwards. The sacrificial part of the Holy Mass MUST be the priest leading his flock towards God as that is his role.
Right, but just a small correction - the "liturgy of the Word" and the "liturgy of the Eucharist" distinction is mainly a Roman/Latin Catholic one, we don't really have such a clear distinction.
@@holyromanemperor420 that's right. I just used those terms to make it more easy to understand for those not familiar with the Syro-Malabar liturgy. Thanks for pointing that out
Hey father I am a new Catholic and I have a preference for traditional styled liturgy’s. This video has helped me see that both ways of facing the altar can be beautiful. And the true purpose is Christ. God bless
Welcome fellow convert! So glad to have received RCIA from a FSSP parish. I just had my wedding band and rosary blessed by the priest a little over a week ago and I certainly feel a difference! Father was so happy to do it, and I should have done it earlier! It's a bit of a drive, but where else can I get catechesis directly from a priest on my schedule? May God bless us all.
Most converts prefer the traditional style Lyturgy because you are much hotter than craddle Catholics, which is good. God Bless you brother. Seek for the unadultered Church. Find a correct priest who doesn´t deviate from the Cathechism.
@harleymann2086you can have a very holy Novus Ordo that is almost like Tridentine mass. We have it in our church. No girl altar servers, 8 boys of different ages serve. Then we have a sacristan, Deacon, most of the year we have visiting seminarians. There are a couple of women who sometimes read. Our priest and deacon are the only ones giving communion though we have a couple of extraordinary ministers who are in charge of the Blood. We also have incense and no one leaves before the procession is out the door as that is the time for the St Michael prayer. I prefer Latin Mass, I think it’s the best way I receive Him but I don’t miss it because our NO is so reverent and beautiful.
@harleymann2086 A rite is more than just the mass, it's a way of life. people who attend Tridentine masses pretty much lives the same way as the people who attend the Novus Ordo masses, the only thing that's different for them is the liturgy.
In my (European) country, there have always been both forms. Most attended the New Mass but there was also a minority who attended the Latin Mass. This was never a problem. There are also many new masses here that are "traditional" with Gregorian chant, lots of incense, etc. Now that some people in the U.S. are making this issue an antagonism or a weapon in the culture war, the Latin Mass is being restricted, which I think is a pity. I prefer the new Mass but I have nothing against the Latin one.
I'm not Catholic. Can you please briefly say what the culture war refers to in context of the Catholic church? Of course I have heard that term, but I don't know how it would relate to the Catholic Church.
@@peterwallis4288A father supposedly wishes to punish a group of his children for the actions of individuals, but won’t identify the individuals specifically. Many have come to believe this reasoning is pretext for actions already desired well before hand, and have taken St Vincent of Lerins’ words to heart: “What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be [the faithful’s] care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.”
@@peterwallis4288it boils down to those who want to change the Church, ie divorce, gay marriage, female deacons/priests, married priests, etc and the traditionalists who want to preserve the Church and are essentially pro Latin Mass, Gregorian chant, adding any pre Vatican II liturgical elements into the standard novus ordo Mass, basically opposes anything that the other group wants to change. If you’re caught in the middle and don’t pick a side, you’re becoming and ever shrinking amount of the population due to both sides trying to beat the other side. The changing group is well armed and is in typically liberal parts of the Church like most of Europe. The traditionalists mainly reside in a few European nations like Poland, France, and England, as well as in the US. The modernist side essentially believes that if we change to fit the current year then we will attract new people into the Church and better retain people who leave. Traditionalists believe going back to traditional liturgies and beliefs will stem the flow of people out of the Church in the western world.
@@natebryars732 As an American living in one of the liberal parts of Europe, but attending the TLM, this is a very balanced answer. I hope you will not be offended if I save your response and share it. I hear from many of my Prod friends back home, about issues in their communities and some of them are looking to the Church. Often it is difficult to answer their questions about ongoing issues fairly. You, in my opinion, have done it well.
I don't really know how to explain this, but I've watched you become a much more effective communicator over the years. You're more concise and articulate, and you enunciate your words more clearly nowadays. It seems like you've been working on this consciously - if so, great work! God bless
He's gaining wisdom and working very hard! But the passion shown in the earliest videos, the days of being a brother, shine through, and the old videos are still uplifting.
@@BreakingInTheHabit on communication what font did you use in the slides I want to say. I like the weird tail on the capital G might use it for my word documents.
I like Novus Ordo's, but I would prefer Traditional Vestments, Incense, Gregorian Chant, and Ad Orientem. It is annoying for people to say Novus Ordo's aren't reverent because of some priests doing them wrong.
I prefer the TLM but I love that the church offers a variety of liturgies. TLM, NO, Byzantine, Syriac, etc. there’s a church ear me that celebrates the NO facing the people but it’s chanted, they put fourth a kneeler in front of the priest for communion and I think it’s a reverend liturgy
Interesting bit of trivia: Even before Vatican II, the priest in some places, especially St. Peter's Basilica, would celebrate versus populum because that orientation also happened to face East. Which tells me (1) ad orientem and versus populum are not mutually exclusive, and (2) that facing East was the primary tradition, and not necessarily the mere fact of everyone, priest and laity, facing the same way.
That's because sometimes Churches were built in a weird way where the wall to do ad orientum as we now understand it wasn't facing the actual east. The Church since then has clarified that the tabernacle is the liturgical east and if you do ad orientum today, you do it facing the liturgical east.
@@josephdemary4048: I'm unaware of any instance where the Church defined the tabernacle as the liturgical east. At least, on its own. I was under the impression that it's the altar that is considered liturgical east. I do know that placing the tabernacle on the altar is a post-reformation development, originating in Rome by Pope Paul V in 1614 as a response to Protestantism's denial of the Real Presence. And I know that Pope Pius XII was a fan of placement upon the altar (he endorsed it in Mediator Dei). But that's different from a definitive pronouncement. I don't know that it could ever be definitive anyway, since tabernacle placement, whatever doctrinal implications it has, seems to fall under the purview of sacramental discipline and not faith and morals. I get what you're saying about liturgical east though. And it makes sense; otherwise there'd be too much variety in orientation at different points of the Mass depending on the building's geography. So the concept of a "liturgical East" is quite reasonable.
I am not sure that the "ad orientum" thing is literally and geographical: churches are always liturgically "oriented" with the entrance west and the altar to the east (back of the church).
In 1969, right after 8th grade, i lost my mother too, to cancer. I was very concerned with something a bit more important. Our mother, who lost more than half her life at her age of just 42 years old; and we lost her too. Too, i might add, she had to get someone to help her write the then Bishop, to write the then Pope, to get a dispensation from her second marriage after 9 years of being single & marrying her second husband. She tried hard with her first marriage, our father. They were married to each other 3xs before they divorced. Why would someone excommunicate someone when they needed Our Lord, & their church, & the sacraments, so much? That was a very unforgettable & painful thing & memory we were all put through too, at the time she was dying, in order to come back to the church & receive the sacraments once again, she had to do that. Now, one can pay monies, and get an "annulment." It was all so confusing & painful to go through at 13 & 14 years old. We were her only hospice, her hope, her love. And she was ours too. 🙏🏻💗 7:32
Read the post- history of Vatican II and acknowledge that there was a liberal movement that was promoted by many Bishops and Priests. Read the history.
😂 I grew up in the 60's and 70's and as long as the Mass is being celebrated reverently with active participation by the congregation, it doesn't matter!
@@monicadriscoll645 Do you mean you are happy *RECITING* responses & prayer *THOUGHTLESSLY* through the rituals performed during the Mass, as long as you receive the Sacraments? 🤔
"If one orientation helps you to focus more on God than the other, then find a Church that celebrates in that way; but don't try to suggest that one way is holier or more true than another." This is the message that needs to be shared. Thank you Father, I hope everyone watches this video to the end.
Re your "If one orientation helps you.... then find a church..." Yes. Except that that option is evaporating faster than dewdrops on a rock. There is no explicit ban of the old-form Mass, but it is heartily discouraged by most hierarchs who place boulders in the way of its (the OF Mass) implementation. Pope Francis as recently as 2023 referred to the call for implementation of the OF Mass as what he calls in Italian “indietrismo,” which translates in English to “backwardness.” (Catholic News Agency, May 9, 2023 - "Pope Francis says traditional Latin Mass being used in an ideological way") HC-JAIPUR (01/Sep/2024) .
From my understanding, this is an attempt to form a compromise between the more traditional and more modern attitudes within that Church to create a unified rite. The traditional wing wants everything ad orientem, the modern wing wants everything versus populum. So the proposed compromise is that the Liturgy of the Word will be versus populum, while the Liturgy of the Eucharist will be ad orientem (that's my ideal too and I wish that would gain widespread adoption in the Latin rite)
@nicksterwixter Just to add some more context here, the 50:50 formula, where the priest is versus populum for the Liturgy of the Word and faces the altar (not necessarily ad orientem) was mandated and implemented by the Syro-malabar Church post-Vatican II. The exception was the Diocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly was given a 50 year dispensation to celebrate the entire mass versus populum. Appeals to extend the dispensation were denied, but the clergy and laity continue to practice versus populum. The only argument they've provided is that this is their tradition, which is the very strong considering they've only been doing it for 50/2000 years. I don't really see any other problems with this, but they've forgotten to exercise the virtue of obedience and its causing internal conflict in parishes outside of Kerala.
The Antiochene Rite for the past near two millennia and from Jerusalem to Kerala, India celebrated divine liturgy in Ad Orientum. The Syro Malankara Catholic Church has kept with the tradition of Antiochene rite's Ad Orientum and will keep that way till HIS second coming.
It is baffling for me why in some dioceses, parishes are not allowed TLM without special permission. As if the early Christians got it wrong and now all of a sudden, the church realize the correct way of doing it. I remember when the response of the congregation to the priest's blessings was "..and also with you...". It was later on altered to " ...and with your spirit" Why, because it is much closer to the original "" et cum spiritu tuo.." Any change must not alter the basic norm of the traditional mass. The idea is, if the early Christians were to be alive today and they would attend the present mass, they would still recognize the whole ceremony. It is therefore baffling why the TLM is being restricted.
My parish was fortunate for a few years to have a priest face ad orientum at Mass and I found my participation and sense of the mystical much more than when the priest faces the people. I’ve always felt that when the priest faces the people it gives more a theatrical impression or disconnect, like it’s something he’s doing up there and we are the viewers.
I think this is an excellent explanation, thank you so much Father Casey, for this. It should not be simplified as a "pre-Vatican II" or polarization between those who prefer one style over another. I also appreciate how you emphasize Catochisis, liturgical education to become better informed of the Catholic traditions. I live and work in southern Italy with my husband who is Spanish, and we love your programs and podcasts. Too many rely on social media feeds for answers these days and not real sources for information on the Catholic Church. Bravo Fr Casey!
Our church has put back the large main altar that was taken out years ago, put the Communion rail back encouraging kneeing when taking the host and preferably by mouth, not hand. Our last two priests have went traditional by turning away from the people at the main alter. As being almost 70 years old, I can relate to the old way and remembering it being that way as an altar boy with Latin used. But you are correct, some are freaking out so badly that they have switched churches that say the Mass facing the people. I have a sentimental view of the more traditional way, but that's just me and my 2 cents.
The first explanation that makes sense about this issue and thank you especially about the documents that most of us have not be told about in classes on the sacred Liturgy. Thank you Father from a very senior catholic!
The idea that you need to see everything on the altar to participate is absurd. I grew up with the NO and no matter where I went I found an utter lack of enthusiasm, decorum, and participation in the mass, and outside the mass I found profound ignorance in conversation. This actually led to me leaving the church because it was so lukewarm and casual. If the Catholic church was indistinguishable from my extended family's protestant church, what was the point? After finally getting a nearby latin mass, I was instantly revived. Now, after 3 seperate latin mass communities I can safely say I have easily been the least enthusiastic, I have failed to be as respectful, and I am surely the most easily distracted. In all these communities I found highly intelligent people with deep knowledge about the faith and great relationships with the community and it's priests. Some may tell lies about these people, but I know the truth. I also know that it is not an accident, and these conditions are created by the church, not the people. I beg anyone reading this to seek out your traditional mass, drive as far as you need to. You can only understand when you see it yourself.
Yes, but why do you find all of that? Because NOW whomever attends to the TLM is a reverted (from protestantism or from NO) who decided in full conscience to do so. Who understands the meanings of the rituals and knows even their language. But at the time of the reformation of the liturgy it wasn't so. I know, my grandmother told me that very little people put attention to what the priest did or said during Mass, and many just prayed by themselves (usually the Rosary), never hearing or understanding a word of what was said (apart from the Gospel and the homily). So in a sense, the PRESENT way the TLM is celebrated and participated in is the fruit of the greater understanding of the liturgy borne out from the lyturgical reformation.
@@Laurelin70 Absolutely ridiculous. My wife and her siblings all grew up in tlm and they put me to shame. In my current parish everyone under the age of 25 grew up in that parish in the tlm, unless you're going to tell me a 5 year old had a reversion, this is baseless speculation. The rosary is said during mass as a PARTICIPATION, not a distraction. In half the mass you are meant to be meditating as the priest prepares. There is visual language and audio cues that convey everything occurring in a more effective way than the NO. I have invited prods and NO's to view masses and they always ask the same questions about the mass because the most important moments LOOK important. Maybe its because you're American?
@@daniel8181 No, I'm italian, and my Faith was formed through the NO, and it wasn't in any way and NEVER unrespectful. Reciting the Rosary through the Mass IS a distraction,because you're supposed to listen to the Word and also to the ritual formulas to making them your own, THEY are your prayer during Mass. Personal meditation and prayer is allowed during the common prayers and after the Communion. For the Rosary there are other moments, usually in the evening at the sunset (the hour of the "Ave Maria"). And yes,I maintain what I said: the TLM NOW is something that is usually CHOSEN by people already formed and educated into Faith. Who then educate their children and grandchildren, exactly like the people who follow the NO and are truly following their Faith. The difference is that the PRESENT TLM has followers who in majority were educated a certain way and can extract from the rituals and the stranger language all there is to extract, while the NO, being the most common form across the globe, has followers of any kind, probably also people who couldn't understand anything in the TLM and who would be like my grandmother, who didn't even understand what she was saying, often mangling the latin words of the Creed or the Pater Noster. Different needs are different, and it should be in the pastoral care of the Church that EVERYONE can approach the Holy Communion with a right awareness and understanding of what they're doing. Maybe in your country the NO masses are severely lacking in solemnity and catechetical meanings, but it's not the same everywhere.
The only thing that makes me pause to think "ad orientum" might have more credibility is how the stance more adequately reflects the interiority of the priest "Ad Duem" . The body mirroring the soul is important
But at the same time the priest is a stand in both for Jesus and his disciples, so it makes sense that he could face us too. I like the intention of removing any mystery about what the priest is doing, so the entire congregation can see. The veil to the holy of holies has been torn, so I do like the symbolism there. I don't really have a strong opinion about it either way, we know it's more important the state our hearts are in than the direction the priest faces. It's not like it makes the eucharist any less valid.
@@loganleroy8622But realistically, what is the priest doing in an ad orientem Mass than is made more visible in versus populum? It's only really the preparation for the actual consecration that wouldn't be visible by virtue of the priest and acolytes blocking it, but the actual elevation, the most important part, is seen regardless
An excellent video, as usual. Concentrate on Jesus in the Eucharist not weather you are looking at the priest or looking at this back. I have never heard this explained this way by anyone. God bless you Fr. Casey and your ministry. You are bringing so many people back to our Lord.
It’s so confusing to me the rapid pace of these changes since the council. From an American perspective the decades preceding the council was the high mark of our faith. From oppressed minority to the presidency. It’s so strange seeing such enthusiasm in changing an ancient practice that worked so well for so long.
This is blind spot for majority of US traditional leaning Catholics. You just pinpointed the challenge of the American church. This golden age of the church in the US preceding the council wasn't a global phenomenon. Church is Africa and Asia where struggling with Latin language and old rite. Natives saw latin as another foreign language being imposed on them by the church after the colonial powers have already done similar thing . The protestant missions actually weaponised this in their polemics against the church . Secondly I think the US Bishop conference should find a way of retrieving some of these traditions that is cherished by the laity in the US just like their African counterparts inculcated African unique expression to Novus Order
Since we have bodies, we are our bodies in a sense, that means that what we do with our bodies matter, that's why when we pray it's good to kneel to orient ourselves towards that spiritually, hence why I think what I think regarding this
I've heard people joke about round churches that way. If you don't like it, sit on on the other side of the building, and Father will be facing the "right" way!"
I dont think the priest should face the people unless he has something to say to them, is blessing them, or is asking forgiveness of them, etc. The liturgy is to worship Christ, so we face him, including the priest.
Thanks for all the sources cited. Speaking from France, I would like to add that the issue is that without a physical reminder, many people forget the reality of the eucharistic sacrifice as explained by John Paul II in "Ecclesia de eucharistia" (it is firstly a sacrifice of the son to the Father and not to the community)
"Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit". Having said this, He breathed His last. This means the sacrifice was to Father, not to community, or not even to Mother Mary.
"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors." Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 2:6 Does Roman Catholic Church believe in the same church that Vincent of Lerins believes in? If God commanded facing the altar and not facing people, we ought to follow how God commands us to worship. Only people that could be said to hold to the right worship would be Traditional Latin mass, Byzantine Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic/Oriental Orthodox Church.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌅 Debate on ad orientem worship is growing in the Catholic Church. 00:50 🕊️ Ad orientem worship was the norm for most of Catholic history, focused on Christ's return from the east. 02:12 🎉 Second Vatican Council aimed for active participation, leading to priest facing the people. 03:32 👥 Celebrating Mass facing the people was encouraged but not mandated. 04:30 🔀 Both ad orientem and versus populum orientations are legitimate, with focus on spiritual orientation to Christ. 06:48 🙏 Orientation is about focusing on God, not physical direction; both orientations can lead to spiritual connection. Made with HARPA AI
I am old enough to have been an Altar Boy during Tridentine Liturgy. Your discussion of ad orientem posture of the celebrant is the most concise and balanced I have seen. Question: Have you ever celebrated the Mass ad orientem?
The Eucharist started at the Last Supper, which was the Passover meal. Jesus would not have had his back to those at the Passover table as he offered bread and wine. Since the priest is acting in persona Christi, facing those celebrating the Eucharistic meal makes sense to me. As Father Casey pointed out, in either orientation it is the devotion to God and the reverence for the real presence in the holy sacrament that is most important.
Fr. Casey, your videos are amazing. You explained this so simply and clearly. I really like how you give the reasons why. (I don't like when people say "it's how we've always done it" for anything - religious or secular. There is a reason why.) The catholic church I've visited is unique in that it isn't pews facing a pulpit and back wall, but stadium style facing the center and towards each other. The priest explained it isn't modern, but really old style, like 5th century. It was designed by the monks who worship together, towards each other. I like that the priest has the option of using a pulpit or walking around when preaching, I feel it's more of him saying I'm also one of you. Like you said at the end, it's what helps you focus in worship. I think the apostle Paul is proud.
Thank you for dealing with this issue. I grew up pre Council and remember many people going to Sunday Mass because it was a good place to get an hour a additional sleep. The Mass was in Latin and who cared what he said. The issue as I see it is that the so-called Traditionalists believe and overtly state that “ad orientum” and the Tridentine form are the ONLY proper forms of Mass and that any other form (novo Ordus) are in error. I predict a schism, if it hasn’t already happened.
Yeah the more I learn about how Latin masses were actually done and practiced, the more I’m glad for the Vatican II rubrics. I can barely follow along in bilingual masses and have a tendency to stray in thought whenever I don’t understand something, and I’m expected to last an hour?!! 😅 Being a little cheeky, I often think to myself “If TLM is sooo great and holy and keeps people in the church, why were people leaving way before Vatican II was bring brought? Why are there still Protestant groups? Why were people happy about the new mass rubrics?” Just something I’m sure will be answered a thousand different ways and will probably have a bunch of circular reasonings and anecdotes not tied to actual reality 🤭
well, sedevacantists have existed since the council. Though in practice, I think we threw the baby out with the baptismal font. The net benefit of vernacular language in the Sunday Liturgy being also contrasted with literally uncalled for, arbitrary, changes that were not and never have been specified in the Novus Ordo missals. Versus Populum being the least of these, though still important in my view. The best way to combat this contemporarian mindset is to hold the Novus Ordo to the same standards as the Tridentine Mass. That is, you try to not rush, don't skip prayers willy nilly (slightly over half in the Novus Ordo are technically optional.) Preferably face ad orientum, but so long as Catholic reference is observed, that is what's most important. I think it would be good to view the Novus Ordo as a sort of slightly abridged Tridentine Mass, but in YOUR language. This would make traditionalists and modernists happy, I should hope. At the end of the day, guitars, tamberines and joke sermons aren't appropriate or reverent in the slightest. But let's not throw out the baby this time, instead of ditching the Novus Ordo, we just practice it more traditionally like it's implied to supposed to.
@@wes4736 I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written. There should be room for may forms of the Mass as there are with the various Byzantine rites (and the Ambrosian rite in Milan). But unfortunately I don’t believe the so-called Traditional Catholics will accept that. Based on what I know about them they are vehemently opposed to any change in the Church that happened since the sixteenth century Council of Trent. If the Church could call that council then why don’t they accept the Vatican II Council. It boggles my mind. I’ve come to believe that the point at which a significant number of people oppose a Synod (or Council, or whatever) is the exact moment that such a synod or council needs to be called.
@@jendoe9436 Can't those same questions be turned back on the Novus Ordo? If the new liturgy was supposed to keep Catholics in the pews, why did the rate of apostasy increase after its implementation? If the new Mass was supposed to usher in an age of ecumenism and conversion, why has the percentage of Protestants in this country remained constant for 50 years? If Mass in the vernacular was supposed to aid in catechesis, why is belief in the Real Presence at an all time low? If the new rubrics are designed for more public appeal, why are traditional communities drawing a disproportionate number of young people? If the Novus Ordo was supposed to usher in a renewal of the Church, why is there a chronic priest shortage? Why are so many churches closing? If you think all these things would've come to pass with the TLM anyway, then what was the point of changing the liturgy?
@@BrewMeister27 Because that’s the thing with humans: we’re fickle and change our minds all the time. I’m not saying the NO doesn’t have issues, but that’s due to implementation and not the basis itself. Same issue with the TLM when it was the only one around, unless you really think TLM was always practiced perfectly every time and no one ever left the faith after attending it. At the end of the day, it’s the person who makes that decision to hold fast to the faith. Sometimes people are given the tools to make it easy, like freedom of religion, strong Catholic family values, good communities, etc. Sometimes it’s more difficult in places where Catholics and Christians in general are persecuted, one has a broken family life, or something happens that pushes them away from the faith. One group may need the bells and whistles of TLM to stay firm, others are good with a NO. As long as both forms are being conducted according to the proper rubrics, I don’t see any issues. As for those wanting TLM, they are self selecting themselves for it because they have a comparison to draw on. Something most in the past didn’t have. I bet if they grew up in a poorly performed TLM, they may move away from that parish and find one that fits them better. Or like others said around that time, leave the faith entirely. I’m not one to demean another’s expression of faith when they are in compliance with Rome. If TLM rocks your boat, okay. If NO does it for ya, go ahead. I’m not prideful enough to assert my form of expression is greater than another’s based solely on physical actions. Some of the most kindest, charitable people I know attend NO, and some of the most intolerant have been extreme TLM goers.
Nice man. Fully agree with everything. I ended up learning about the old Latin Rite about a year ago and loved it. But now I can definitely see why The Church thought it might be a good idea to have the priest face the people. However now knowing what the true point of it is, I feel I can appreciate both to their fullest extent now. Thank you father!
I don't know what it is but there seems to be something about TLM and its rigidness that leaves little room for liturgical abuse than the NO does. It could be because there are so few parishes that celebrate TLM that you would expect those ones to have delved deeper in to the faith. I've been going to NO Masses my entire life until just last year when I started going to TLM and the first NO Mass I went to that felt on par with TLM was at my grandmother's funeral earlier this year.
TLM is not honest. The people should be standing (as it says at the beginning of the canon), should not include Filioque in the creed, should offer the cup, and should observe the proper order (traditional) of the sacraments of initiation
In large part, this is due to a confirmation bias. Talk to anyone who went to Mass before the Council. There were plenty of abuses. Nowadays, any priest who wishes to celebrate the TLM will generally be a priest who cares deeply about the traditional liturgy, because he has to go out of his way to celebrate it.
How can a priest have his back to God? Isn't God everywhere? I don't think God is so petty as to be offended by which direction people are facing. I believe a priest's job is to continuously lead people to God and Jesus Christ not only in ritual but in action, because we will always stray, and in that sense, the Church is failing on a massive scale, and thus failing God. While traditions can be beautiful and comforting, they can't get in the way of the Church's purpose to exist. The Church is bleeding followers so much so that even the original countries that so fervently brought the faith to the America's are now among the least faithful. We don't live in a world where our faith is to be taken for granted. It has to be actively ignited because God apparently didn't create a loyal humanity. We lose the light. Every single last one of us loses the light. Whenever we act against one another, we lose the light. Whenever we behave selfishly or with greed, we lose the light. Whenever we harbor fear, hate, and intolerance, we lose the light. We lose the light almost every single day. We need a Church that is willing to get its robes filthy and shredded and runs to save us, that grabs us in its arms to save us, that willingly and unreservedly steps directly in the line of danger to save us, and that does so purely with the faith in the light and love Jesus Christ has for even the least among us. That isn't the Church we have today.
I think that it’s difficult for people to really orient themselves spiritually, we often don’t usually orient ourselves beyond what we see. At my parish, we celebrate Ad Orientam for one of the Mass on Sunday and at the beautiful High altar with altar rails and communion patens, with organ and chant, with Latin and reverence. It is often truly advisable to make the liturgy as reverent and ornamental as possible, because we can greater comprehend the solemnity of Mass and the majesty of God in this way. Prayers to you Father, may God sustain you
As somenone who has problems with keeping attention for long periods, is a visual learner and has difficulty understanding voices when they are muffled... Ad orientem is like a nightmare for me, I cant understand a single things that happens and my mind starts going to the clouds. I agree that it is beautiful and holy but for me I prefer it when the priest faces us, which is why The Church gives us a lot of options for Rites, all of the beautiful and Holy, to be able to Choose which one is better for you Spiritually
me too and I hate how so many who want Latin try to demonize NO instead of saying it's a preference of theirs. It's always they esthetics, the "feeling" they get. Just like some like simple churches and some like highly ornate. I find in the middle the best, I think too much makes me distracted and is less pretty unless its Michelangelo. : )
I see your point, but it brings up the old question of “If a priest does a ritual, and nobody is there to see it, did it actually happen?” The answer is yes, the faithful don’t need to see and hear everything that happens. Try the Byzantine rite where there is a wall between you and the sanctuary, and yet they are basically the gold standard for laity-participation.
It is a simple fact that when a priest faces the congregation, the people will pay attention to the details of the personhood of the pastor: his mannerisms, etc. The evidence of mass attendence since speaks for itself. How many of you had to leave or have separated yourselves from a parish because of the impressions made by a priest? You see too much of their humanity and not enough of Jesus's divinity. Seeing priests less, ironically, I argue, will bring more back into the fold as it will be less about the pastor and more about the sacrifice.
Hello, thank you for your good work. Just suggest something: I believe it would be beneficial to those that want to explore more this kind of questions, if you could share the links of the documents you cite on the description. Most if not all are on the internet, this way it would be easier to people that want to study the documents and so strengthen their faith and the teachings of the Church, to reach them. (Sorry if my English isn't that good, I'm Portuguese)
I recommend reading: “How Christ Said the First Mass: or the Rites and Ceremonies of Jesus and the Apostles, Foretold in the Hebrew Passover” by Rev. James L. Meagher It was first published in 1906 and provides a great historical context.
At our parish, all but the anticipated Saturday mass is offered ad orientem. I’ve been impressed with what a difference this makes with regards to the ordinary liturgy’s facilitation of the active participation desired by the council.
I dont disagree with much of what you say, but this idea that smaller or more formal aspects of the liturgical celebration do not matter except for X -- this is a stupid trope that needs to go. This minimalistic reductionism claiming that we should "focus on what matters" or saying that all these little things are unimportant because "the only important thing is X." If that is so then why do we not just tear down all the images like the Calvinists did? So we can focus on what is the most important and completely declutter our spirituality of minor distractions? No, in reality the Church has given us a holistic approach to liturgy that is rich and complex and has been carefully laid out for us in a variety of texts to clarify and regulate exactly what it is supposed to be, and it is not appropriate to look at it from a dumb reductionist perspective of ignoring the importance of everything except whatever the celebrant deems to be actually important. The deliberately narrow yet liberalized approach to interpreting how liturgy should be conducted, by preferring some parts as important and everything else as unimportant, this is why the liturgy is so screwed up in this country, and why the natural reaction has emerged in the form of a militant cult of TLM rad trad activists. In reality we need more Novus Ordo priests and lay people who are literate about what the liturgy actually is, rubrics and general instruction and all the other important texts and documents, and then ACTUALLY DO THAT instead of selectively omitting or altering it to be whatever the priest feels like doing today, or worse like Aaron being made to make a golden calf because the people made him do it.
Thanks for this Padre. I was worried that i was wrong not to care very much. While I like the idea of gathering "around the table" I figured that as long as we're all facing the altar.... no harm no foul as it were.
I agree that what matters is not how priests position themselves, but delivering the word of God, what i don't agree that all churches deliver the same. There are churches inviting ltgbq+ inciting acceptance of same, and that is a disrespect to the holiest place. Additionally, it's not in the bible. All are children of God, but all must respect the house of God, and some priests are not abiding by the catechism.
I think the issue here is not whether one is correct or better than the other. The big problem is the prohibition one which is the traditional norm. I asked our parish priest if we could celebrate mass traditionally once in a while, and his answer was he had to have permission from the bishop. Why?????
@normarosales1768 It isn't vengeance. It is to shepherd the flock! The extraordinary rite is Church patrimony, and people with bad intentions shouldn't be allowed to use it to cause divisions in the Church.
@@normarosales1768 Not all of them. But many people who wants the TLM yes, absolutely. I would remind you of the Bishop Lefebvre in France, who became schismatic (and many faithful with him) just because of these kind of issues. For many, attending the TLM is a way to show their refusal of the present Pope.
Our world and our Church would be a better place if people were more preoccupied by their own moral orientation than a priest's orientation during the mass. While this is all very interesting, and I thank you, Father Casey, for producing such an informative video on this topic, I think too many of our fellow Catholics overly concern themselves on such procedural minutiae at the expense of their own moral betterment and the improvement of the lives of others.
You are right in pointing out that the moral / spiritual orientation is far more important, yet - given that we are not only spirit but also body - what you call “procedural minutiae” can have a deep positive or negative effect on our spiritual orientation. It becomes more difficult to focus on Christ when the celebrant makes himself the focus by interjecting his own quirks into the Mass.
Great Video! I much prefer ad orientem and I think versus populum has been a net negative. However pastorally I think the ideal move for the Latin rite is to have half versus populum (during liturgy of the word) and half ad orientem (during liturgy of the Eucharist). The priest would of course turn around to face the people at certain points during the liturgy of the Eucharist as he does in the TLM. This to me would help preserve the dual symbolism of meal and sacrifice in the liturgy.
We should also go back to doing readings on the altar, since it is supposed to be its own little “sacrifice of praise”. This concept is now lost on the people since we have some old lady do it from a pulpit.
I’m shocked by the number of people who view the priest’s physical orientation as a determining indicator of reverence or absence thereof during the mass.
Thank you Father for this video. Our home parish celebrates the Mass Versus Populum but the parish I attend for daily Mass celebrates the Mass Ad Orientem. I grew up pre-Vatican II so Ad Orientem was normal. I appreciate the reason for the priest facing the people and allowing the people to see so I have no issues. I appreciate both and at my age I don't feel either helps or prevents me from fully participating fully in the Mass. Out of curiosity Father, judging from your opening statement, I believe you celebrate the Mass Versus Populum. Have you ever celebrated the Mass Ad Orientem? Thanks again for your ministry, your love of your vocation and this UA-cam channel.
As a "senior citizen" at 67, I have vague memories of attending Mass in the old Latin Rite and the Priests back to the congregation. I hold no malice toward Vatican II for changing the Mass. In my adult life, I attended Mass in many different countries and languages and always knew what was going on and what's next, I always felt at home at any Mass. The only thing I have against the 1962 revisions to the Latin Mass is that many celebrating Priests do not hold up the Host Body of Christ or the Chalice or His Holy Blood ABOVE their head. I rarely see it in the current Novus Ordum Mass. In the old Latin Mass this is the whole gist of the Holy Sacrifice The Mass for me. I don't know if the 1962 revision changed that or not, I have yet to find out officially.
I checked my missal, which has the rubrics printed in it. It seems like the priest is supposed to elevate the Host and then the chalice high enough so that the people can easily see them. That said, there may be legitimate reasons a priest might not do so, either because of an injury or disability or age.
That is the "ostensio": the priest show the Holy Host and Chalice to the Assembly. That's the whole gist of that gesture. Until they are visible to all the people in the church, they are good. Nothing more.
This is splitting my church into two. I belong to the Syro Malabar Church. Our tradition is to face towards east. Because of the involvements of the Roman Catholic church, some priests started doing it like the Roman Catholics do. Recently the Pope asked all oriental catholic churches to go back to their roots. Now the biggest diocese in my church is protesting it.
Thank you for the excellent lecture. Most probably the best thing is the position of some Roman basilicas in which the church is oriented that the priest face east and the people in the same direction
I’m from the Eastern syro-malabar rite and when our priests decided to face away from the crowd during certain parts of mass a parishioner objected and said “I don’t think I can receive holy communion after spending the whole mass looking at the priest’s ‘behind’ (to put it lightly)”. The priest just smiled and replied “imagine what difficulty everyone who is not in the first row must be in, they’re not just seeing my back, but of all those standing before them. I hope to see you in the front pew from now on.” I had to hold in my laughter not to offend the poor man. Never saw him in the front row though🥲
Even before the Council, it was not required that the priest face the apse rather than face the altar and people. Fr. Pius Parsch was a great promoter of facing the people and altar rather than facing the apse.
Really really good! Thanks for the clarification Father. Why was this so hard to explain? You did it beautifully. Latin or Novus, it’s still the same: orientation towards God. Really great.
When the priest is facing the Tabernacle he's not "tempted" to improvise. When the priest is facing the people, there's a temptation to perform, to captivate attention etc. And if we believe God is truly present in the Tabernacle how does it make sense to turn our back to Him.
@@amdg672 This thing of priests becoming "performers" must be an American thing. I've attended Mass for all my life, in different churches and cities in Italy, and never once found a priest "performing" or "improvising" during Mass, especially during the Eucharistic rite. In Italy usually the people complain that the Mass is boring and always the same...
@@Laurelin70ehhhh… I used to think the same thing, until I learned what the rubrics actually were and realized most of what I experienced wasn’t how it was supposed to be…
@@EpoRose1 In Italy? I used to read the official Missal, and what I read was what I watched and heard on the altar. Every. Single. Time. The only occasions when the priests "improvised" were during "children masses", and NEVER during the Eucharistic rite.
“The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”. -Pope Benedict XVI The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg. 80
I dislike the argument that it’s “Not how we physically orient ourselves, but how we spiritually orient ourselves to Christ.” We are creatures of both spirit AND body. When we receive the Holy Eucharist, we kneel out of respect and reverence for the presence of God. This is an act we do with our BODIES, propelled by the will of the spirit. It’s a unitive act that shows that we are working both forms of being that God gave us, to revere Christ. How we use our bodies to show honor and submission to God matters.
And as I said in the video, no matter which way you face your are *physically* orienting yourself to Christ as well. In facing East, you are not focused on the back wall but on Christ on the altar. When facing the people, everyone is focusing on the sacrifice on the altar.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I agree with this sentiment. And yet sadly, in several circumstances across the globe and in the US in particular, various bishops have disciplined or removed clerics from parishes, limited or banned ad orientem in the Novus Ordo, and imposed the perception of a ghettoing of those who are spiritually nourished by this posture. While it may not be meant as an action to foment division, in practice this is what occurs. Thank you for the measured video. While I may prefer the old rite and ad orientem, level-headed persons expressing reasons in charity is much appreciated. Many blessings!
@@BreakingInTheHabit: Good point, actually. In both orientations, the priest is technically facing the altar. Overall, I don't know that it's the orientation itself that creates the impression that the Mass is about the people or the priest, but more about the context. For example, the design of the altar, catechesis, the ability of the priest to "decrease" in relation to the altar, lighting, and the decor on and upon the altar. Done properly, in either orientation, these factors will direct everyone, body and soul, toward the sacrifice on the altar. Done improperly (deliberately or accidently), in either orientation, it'll be misdirected toward the priest/people.
It's surprising that this video should come up now. I just returned from vacation. The church I attended in northern Virginia was very different than mine on Long Island. The priest faced away from the congregation during the prayers, and everyone knelt for Communion. I found it odd. I know that facing away was the old style of Mass, but I didn't know it was done anywhere any more. Thank you for explaining everything.
Been to masses with the priest facing the crucifix and facing the congregation. Personally, I prefer when a priest faces the congregation as I enjoy seeing the process and it makes me more appreciative of seeing common bread and wine be transformed before my eyes. I understand the sacrificial emphasis when the priest faces the crucifix, but that does not resonate as much with me.
Really liking this explanation! I think the biggest divide honestly is the generations and the type of world we grew up in being so different. Have you done a video on Tabernacle placement before? This seems to be a big issue in some churches where some still have Jesus front and center behind the altar, where others have the tabernacle in a side chapel. This tends to be the issue I see more problematic with the focus of the congregation. When the tabernacle is moved, but then the priests chair is placed behind the altar.
Real question for Father Casey @BreakingInTheHabit , or anyone else who knows: If versus populum is supposed to offer a means of deeper participation what am I supposed to be seeing or noticing when the priest celebrates versus populum that I don't see at an ad orientem service? I know the bread and water and wine are on the altar, I saw them during the offertory procession, and I can see the priest lifting the host and chalice after consecration. I can hear him fine, so I know where we are in the prayer. What does versus populum show me during the liturgy that I don't already see? Tldr: What are my ad orientem priests hiding from me?!? Lol.
Right ! Plus - We use the phrase “ Sacred Mysteries “ when describing the Mass. We’re not supposed to see and hear everything. Nor, can we ever fully understand them. Father won’t admit it, but most of the changes to the Mass since 1965 had to do with ecumenism. Make the Mass look more Protestant to draw them back to the fold. It failed.
@markredman4497 I don't necessarily think that a lack of knowledge of the rite is any benefit. I would point out what Pope Francis wrote in Desiderio Desideravi: "It is said that the sense of mystery has been removed from the celebration. The astonishment or wonder of which I speak is not some sort of being overcome in the face of an obscure reality or a mysterious rite. It is, on the contrary, marvelling at the fact that the salvific plan of God has been revealed in the paschal deed of Jesus (cf. Eph 1:3-14), and the power of this paschal deed continues to reach us in the celebration of the “mysteries,” of the sacraments. It is still true that the fullness of revelation has, in respect to our human finitude, an abundance that transcends us and will find its fulfilment at the end of time when the Lord will return. But if the astonishment is of the right kind, then there is no risk that the otherness of God’s presence will not be perceived, even within the closeness that the Incarnation intends.... Beauty, just like truth, always engenders wonder, and when these are referred to the mystery of God, they lead to adoration." The mystery in question is the Pachal Mystery, not some disconnect between us and the finer symbolism of the ritual of the Mass.
I spent years following Priests as opposed to Christ. I am not knocking personalities, but once I understood why my experience was unpleasant every time change was experienced, God gave me enough insight as to what I was doing wrong. I appreciate your honesty and constant attempts to make us better. Love and prayers Brother.
As someone who attends the TLM, I've never really thought of it as the priest having his back turned toward us, but rather leading us to Calvary where the sacrifice of the mass is about to take place and then offering himself up in persona Christi as a true and living sacrifice to the Father on our behalf.
Amen bröther
The priest is offering himself as a sacrifice? That doesn't quite make sense to me.
I’ve always seen it as the priest is more like us by facing the same direction where as versus populous he is talking to us
@@megrose711What the writer means is that it is Jesus Christ who offers his humanity to God with the priest indirectly doing that as in Persona Christi.
That's the point of Casey's language. He's being intentionally deceptive.
I like ad orientem, altar rails, and Gregorian chant style music.
But it is so much more than that.
@@davidoneill9244 yes, for me altar rails would cause a huge gain. As I think it could lead to more reverence.
Me too. Let’s go to a Latin mass!
@@davidoneill9244- that's true, it IS so much more than that. But these are points of reverence, traditions accumulated by Western Catholics that show how we gear our mind and ready ourselves for worship. The Novus Ordo didn't get rid of these, bishops did when the New Order of the Mass was introduced.
The thing about Novus Ordo is that it's extremely fluid, and many portions are optional or left up to an individuals prerogative, and this comes with some benefits and drawbacks. Slightly over half of the prayers of the Novus Ordo are technically optional, and so mass length when you travel can vary wildly, could anywhere between 45 minutes and two hours, not including the Homily. Also, I think that modern priests dropping so much traditional reverence in place for late 20th century contemporary worship was just not a good thing.
I think both Modernists and traditionalists would and SHOULD reconsile this, by viewing the Novus Ordo as a sort of slightly abridged Tridentine Mass, but in YOUR language. I think it would be good to make the Novus Ordo norm Ad Orientum again, it was for a couple of years. I also think bringing back parish chants, and developing a Catholic culture of not skipping over as many optional prayers would be really cool.
These things I don't think should be solely associated with the Tridentine Mass (or called the Latin Mass/TLM) and that these things so universal in the Roman Rite only a few decades ago are being for some reason argued over very troubling. What reason is there to not treat the Novus Ordo as an understandable traditional Liturgy? Novus Ordo doesn't say anything about guitars and tamberines, or about shoddy 1970s chique aesthetic, but these things are unfairly pinned onto the Novus Ordo because bishops of that time wanted to add their *personal* flavor to their masses.
@davidoneill9244 yes, and easier to get to, with these sacred accessories.. It was very arrogant and sixtiesish - ideological naivety -to sweep everything away. And Pope Francis still has his head firmly in this sixties utopian bubble. It's backward and dumbed down, like the Liturgy for the last 50 years.
Even though I grew up with the priest facing the people, I've had a few with the priest facing the altar and I find I prefer that the priest face the altar.
He faces the altar either way!
@@andrewelliott1939 I think you get the point. God bless.
@stooch66 Precision of terminology is important, don't you think?
It aids understanding and debate, and helps prevent misunderstanding.
@@andrewelliott1939Christians ALWAYS PRAYED FACING EAST. STILL THIS DAY ALSO AT HOME. EVEN THE TOMBS ARE ORIENTED
@@andrewelliott1939In the Church we STAND BEFORE GOD, the Priest stand before God and not before the people!
Catholics are protestants!
Ad Orientem has much more beautiful symbolism and even makes the design of churches infinitely easier. Everyone is in pilgrimage to the same direction - the Holy Sacrament celebrated in the Holy Mass; no one else is more important or deserves more attention and focus than Him.
AO also has a more logical flow. There are numerous reasons why it survived for centuries .
I believe in 50 years it will be standard practice.
.
@TheGrenadier97. Your personal opinion
@@iparipaitegianiparipaitegi4643 it shouldn't be.
Its how the jewish priests in the bible worshiped. To the sanctuary, not the people. And it was always towards to sanctuary, until last 70 years. Tells you something about the times.
@@WT-Shermanagain hopefully
I attended and graduated from a Catholic university close to 40 years ago. We were required to take religion classes. In one of them, which was taught by a priest, we were told that the reason Vatican II declared that the priest should face the people was because the people wanted to see what was transpiring and almost considered it their right to do so. Facing the alter blocked the view of the people and they felt they were unable to fully participate in the Mass. In addition, in the Tridentine Mass, the transubstantiation was performed by the priest bending low over the host and chalice and literally whispering the prayer making it impossible for the people to see or hear it.
That sentence 'the liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the eucharistic synaxis' sounds a bit like Protestantism to me. Many protestant denominations have what is called 'the priesthood of the believer' which is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers which states that all believers in Christ share in his priestly status, eliminating any special classes. This claims to derive from the Bible, but was elaborated in the theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin.
I also think over the last 45 years or so, the Church has been divided into factions of liberal and conservative. John Paul II pushed the envelope of Vatican II to make further reforms which, in MY opinion, moved us further away from traditional Catholicism. Pope Benedict XVI was slowly going back to more conservative and traditional doctrine and ways and even encouraged the Tridentine Mass. Now, Pope Francis has swung back the other way and I believe has forbidden churches from celebrating the Tridentine Mass other than those who already have permission from their bishops to do so. I love the Tridentine Mass. Personally, I think it's more spiritual and I feel closer to God and Jesus Christ when attending one.
Well said
@@StAlphonsusHasAPosse Thank you! I appreciate that!
Thank you. Well said and truthful. As a convert it has become evident to me what reverential really is. T L M
We are all baptized as priests, prophets, and kings in Jesus Christ. This is of course different from the ministerial priesthood of ordained men, but the idea the laity sharing in Christ's priesthood through his Passion and Resurrection, which necessitates spiritual sacrifice (the greatest of which is the Holy Mass) is hardly a Protestant idea. Obviously our role in this spiritual sacrifice is different from that of ordained priests, though. Anyway, this might not even be what you're referencing. God be with ye! :)
In the Syro Malabar Catholic Church (one of the eastern catholic churches of East Syriac liturgical origin established in India ) we have the liturgy of the word facing people and liturgy of eucharist ad orientum and the final blessing part facing people . The harmony of both priest coming down facing people for liturgy of word and climbing up towards the altar ad orientum celebrating the eucharist is so beautiful 🙏🏻✝️
And three hours later - the dismissal 🤭
@@vstu7643 what do you mean 3 hours
@@tonymaliyekkali think he wants to say the liturgy is long over there idk
@@ObliviAce liturgy of Syro malabar church is only 1-1.5hrs on Sundays and less than 45 minutes on weekdays
@@tonymaliyekkal I know. He's just being goofy
All my life I had the priest facing the people. I am 50 years now and started to slowly grow into TLM. I think it is most reverent, mystical and beautiful.
I’m just started RCIA but I have been attending Catholic masses for around 6 months and I have been lucky enough to attend the new mass as well as low and high Latin masses and they are all beautiful. I cannot wait until I am confirmed and can participate in the Eucharist. Thank you for your videos father. God bless.
God bless you, and welcome to the church
Feel sorry for you bud
You have a better perspective than most “trads”.
What do you mean by a new mass and high and low mass, please? I never heard someone referring a liturgy in these terms.
@jacaro2012 There are people who can explain it better, but I'll try. High Mass is a more formal Mass said on feast days, weddings, etc, and on Sunday in some churches. It has incense, etc. Low Mass is the "usual Mass."
The Old Mass is the traditional Latin Mass (TLM,) said in Latin except for the homily and announcements. The priest faces the altar toward the Bread and Body of Christ, with his back to the parishioners, unless he is speaking to them. The New Mass (Novus Ordo) was approved in the early '60's. It is in the language of the congregation, and the priest faces the parishioners, with his back to the Body and Blood. Please try both and see which one you like. Generalizing here, but the TLM tends to have more young people and young families. The New Mass tends to have more older people. I hope this helps. Welcome to the church, and may God bless you and yours.
As a young Syro Malabar catholic, ive grown up with a compromise of both in that the liturgy of the Word is facing the people and the liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrating facing the Tabernacle. I find this to be so powerful in that the priest offers the sacrifice of Christ in such intimacy with Christ that you can't help but think that heaven and earth are meeting in this magnificent sacrament.
How right you are. It is right & proper that the readings - which are for our edification - should (like the sermon) be given facing the people BUT the Holy Sacrifice should be the priest LEADING the people towards God & it is difficult leading someone when - in effect - going backwards. The sacrificial part of the Holy Mass MUST be the priest leading his flock towards God as that is his role.
Absolutely, that's the best way.
You could also see it as reflecting the years of ministry to the hours on the cross, when Jesus was with and away from his flock
Right, but just a small correction - the "liturgy of the Word" and the "liturgy of the Eucharist" distinction is mainly a Roman/Latin Catholic one, we don't really have such a clear distinction.
@@holyromanemperor420 that's right. I just used those terms to make it more easy to understand for those not familiar with the Syro-Malabar liturgy. Thanks for pointing that out
Hey father
I am a new Catholic and I have a preference for traditional styled liturgy’s. This video has helped me see that both ways of facing the altar can be beautiful. And the true purpose is Christ. God bless
Welcome fellow convert! So glad to have received RCIA from a FSSP parish. I just had my wedding band and rosary blessed by the priest a little over a week ago and I certainly feel a difference! Father was so happy to do it, and I should have done it earlier! It's a bit of a drive, but where else can I get catechesis directly from a priest on my schedule? May God bless us all.
Most converts prefer the traditional style Lyturgy because you are much hotter than craddle Catholics, which is good. God Bless you brother. Seek for the unadultered Church.
Find a correct priest who doesn´t deviate from the Cathechism.
Proper catechesis. That's the keyword. Thank you Padre
@harleymann2086you can have a very holy Novus Ordo that is almost like Tridentine mass. We have it in our church. No girl altar servers, 8 boys of different ages serve. Then we have a sacristan, Deacon, most of the year we have visiting seminarians. There are a couple of women who sometimes read. Our priest and deacon are the only ones giving communion though we have a couple of extraordinary ministers who are in charge of the Blood. We also have incense and no one leaves before the procession is out the door as that is the time for the St Michael prayer.
I prefer Latin Mass, I think it’s the best way I receive Him but I don’t miss it because our NO is so reverent and beautiful.
@harleymann2086 A rite is more than just the mass, it's a way of life. people who attend Tridentine masses pretty much lives the same way as the people who attend the Novus Ordo masses, the only thing that's different for them is the liturgy.
In my (European) country, there have always been both forms. Most attended the New Mass but there was also a minority who attended the Latin Mass. This was never a problem. There are also many new masses here that are "traditional" with Gregorian chant, lots of incense, etc. Now that some people in the U.S. are making this issue an antagonism or a weapon in the culture war, the Latin Mass is being restricted, which I think is a pity. I prefer the new Mass but I have nothing against the Latin one.
American who loves the Latin Mass but not necessarily the crowd it attracts here, and I could not agree with you more.
I'm not Catholic. Can you please briefly say what the culture war refers to in context of the Catholic church? Of course I have heard that term, but I don't know how it would relate to the Catholic Church.
@@peterwallis4288A father supposedly wishes to punish a group of his children for the actions of individuals, but won’t identify the individuals specifically. Many have come to believe this reasoning is pretext for actions already desired well before hand, and have taken St Vincent of Lerins’ words to heart:
“What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be [the faithful’s] care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.”
@@peterwallis4288it boils down to those who want to change the Church, ie divorce, gay marriage, female deacons/priests, married priests, etc and the traditionalists who want to preserve the Church and are essentially pro Latin Mass, Gregorian chant, adding any pre Vatican II liturgical elements into the standard novus ordo Mass, basically opposes anything that the other group wants to change. If you’re caught in the middle and don’t pick a side, you’re becoming and ever shrinking amount of the population due to both sides trying to beat the other side. The changing group is well armed and is in typically liberal parts of the Church like most of Europe. The traditionalists mainly reside in a few European nations like Poland, France, and England, as well as in the US. The modernist side essentially believes that if we change to fit the current year then we will attract new people into the Church and better retain people who leave. Traditionalists believe going back to traditional liturgies and beliefs will stem the flow of people out of the Church in the western world.
@@natebryars732 As an American living in one of the liberal parts of Europe, but attending the TLM, this is a very balanced answer. I hope you will not be offended if I save your response and share it. I hear from many of my Prod friends back home, about issues in their communities and some of them are looking to the Church. Often it is difficult to answer their questions about ongoing issues fairly. You, in my opinion, have done it well.
I don't really know how to explain this, but I've watched you become a much more effective communicator over the years. You're more concise and articulate, and you enunciate your words more clearly nowadays. It seems like you've been working on this consciously - if so, great work! God bless
Thanks! Part of it is getting older, part of it is taking the craft very seriously and learning from other UA-cam channels.
Same here.
He's gaining wisdom and working very hard! But the passion shown in the earliest videos, the days of being a brother, shine through, and the old videos are still uplifting.
@@BreakingInTheHabit on communication what font did you use in the slides I want to say. I like the weird tail on the capital G might use it for my word documents.
As an Orthodox Christian, I always wondered about this when visiting a Catholic Church. Thank you for the explanation!
The priest is not standing with his back to the people, he is facing God WITH the people. We are at the foot of the crucifixion at every Mass.
I like Novus Ordo's, but I would prefer Traditional Vestments, Incense, Gregorian Chant, and Ad Orientem. It is annoying for people to say Novus Ordo's aren't reverent because of some priests doing them wrong.
So you like novus ordo as mandated by the conciliar documents, the general instruction and the rubrics? Sorry but stop being such a backwardist.
Its because there are many priests who do it wrong and they are not reverent. It is not because of the form, but because the form is ignored.
"Some" you mean 99.99%?
I prefer the TLM but I love that the church offers a variety of liturgies. TLM, NO, Byzantine, Syriac, etc. there’s a church ear me that celebrates the NO facing the people but it’s chanted, they put fourth a kneeler in front of the priest for communion and I think it’s a reverend liturgy
Jesus instructed his deciples to wear only one cloak and sandals. How is it that all these sparkly robes are acceptable 🤔 where's the humbleness.
Interesting bit of trivia:
Even before Vatican II, the priest in some places, especially St. Peter's Basilica, would celebrate versus populum because that orientation also happened to face East. Which tells me (1) ad orientem and versus populum are not mutually exclusive, and (2) that facing East was the primary tradition, and not necessarily the mere fact of everyone, priest and laity, facing the same way.
That's because sometimes Churches were built in a weird way where the wall to do ad orientum as we now understand it wasn't facing the actual east. The Church since then has clarified that the tabernacle is the liturgical east and if you do ad orientum today, you do it facing the liturgical east.
@@josephdemary4048: I'm unaware of any instance where the Church defined the tabernacle as the liturgical east. At least, on its own. I was under the impression that it's the altar that is considered liturgical east.
I do know that placing the tabernacle on the altar is a post-reformation development, originating in Rome by Pope Paul V in 1614 as a response to Protestantism's denial of the Real Presence. And I know that Pope Pius XII was a fan of placement upon the altar (he endorsed it in Mediator Dei). But that's different from a definitive pronouncement. I don't know that it could ever be definitive anyway, since tabernacle placement, whatever doctrinal implications it has, seems to fall under the purview of sacramental discipline and not faith and morals.
I get what you're saying about liturgical east though. And it makes sense; otherwise there'd be too much variety in orientation at different points of the Mass depending on the building's geography. So the concept of a "liturgical East" is quite reasonable.
I am not sure that the "ad orientum" thing is literally and geographical: churches are always liturgically "oriented" with the entrance west and the altar to the east (back of the church).
@@snorry84ad orientEM
In 1969, right after 8th grade, i lost my mother too, to cancer. I was very concerned with something a bit more important. Our mother, who lost more than half her life at her age of just 42 years old; and we lost her too. Too, i might add, she had to get someone to help her write the then Bishop, to write the then Pope, to get a dispensation from her second marriage after 9 years of being single & marrying her second husband. She tried hard with her first marriage, our father. They were married to each other 3xs before they divorced. Why would someone excommunicate someone when they needed Our Lord, & their church, & the sacraments, so much? That was a very unforgettable & painful thing & memory we were all put through too, at the time she was dying, in order to come back to the church & receive the sacraments once again, she had to do that. Now, one can pay monies, and get an "annulment." It was all so confusing & painful to go through at 13 & 14 years old. We were her only hospice, her hope, her love. And she was ours too. 🙏🏻💗 7:32
As a brother priest, thanks for your balanced approach. Hard to find these days!
So happy my parish will start offering this!
Just went to mass at St. Mark’s basilica in Venice. The mass was as orientum and was beautiful.
Wonderful to see it making a comeback!❤️🙏🏻
Read the post- history of Vatican II and acknowledge that there was a liberal movement that was promoted by many Bishops and Priests. Read the history.
Exactly
And here....we...go....(grabs popcorn) (dives into comments section)
Exactly
😂 I grew up in the 60's and 70's and as long as the Mass is being celebrated reverently with active participation by the congregation, it doesn't matter!
LOL 😂 me too!
come back in a day or 2
@@monicadriscoll645
Do you mean you are happy *RECITING* responses & prayer *THOUGHTLESSLY* through the rituals performed during the Mass, as long as you receive the Sacraments? 🤔
"If one orientation helps you to focus more on God than the other, then find a Church that celebrates in that way; but don't try to suggest that one way is holier or more true than another." This is the message that needs to be shared. Thank you Father, I hope everyone watches this video to the end.
Re your "If one orientation helps you.... then find a church..."
Yes. Except that that option is evaporating faster than dewdrops on a rock. There is no explicit ban of the old-form Mass, but it is heartily discouraged by most hierarchs who place boulders in the way of its (the OF Mass) implementation. Pope Francis as recently as 2023 referred to the call for implementation of the OF Mass as what he calls in Italian “indietrismo,” which translates in English to “backwardness.” (Catholic News Agency, May 9, 2023 - "Pope Francis says traditional Latin Mass being used in an ideological way")
HC-JAIPUR (01/Sep/2024)
.
Pope Francis is enforcing ad orientem for liturgy in the Syro-Malabar church...Yet some are doing ad populum against the ruling of the Pope...
From my understanding, this is an attempt to form a compromise between the more traditional and more modern attitudes within that Church to create a unified rite. The traditional wing wants everything ad orientem, the modern wing wants everything versus populum. So the proposed compromise is that the Liturgy of the Word will be versus populum, while the Liturgy of the Eucharist will be ad orientem (that's my ideal too and I wish that would gain widespread adoption in the Latin rite)
@@nicksterwixter God hears you.
@nicksterwixter Just to add some more context here, the 50:50 formula, where the priest is versus populum for the Liturgy of the Word and faces the altar (not necessarily ad orientem) was mandated and implemented by the Syro-malabar Church post-Vatican II. The exception was the Diocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly was given a 50 year dispensation to celebrate the entire mass versus populum. Appeals to extend the dispensation were denied, but the clergy and laity continue to practice versus populum. The only argument they've provided is that this is their tradition, which is the very strong considering they've only been doing it for 50/2000 years. I don't really see any other problems with this, but they've forgotten to exercise the virtue of obedience and its causing internal conflict in parishes outside of Kerala.
The Antiochene Rite for the past near two millennia and from Jerusalem to Kerala, India celebrated divine liturgy in Ad Orientum. The Syro Malankara Catholic Church has kept with the tradition of Antiochene rite's Ad Orientum and will keep that way till HIS second coming.
@@nicksterwixternah it’s always been like that. Ad populum is the difference
It is baffling for me why in some dioceses, parishes are not allowed TLM without special permission.
As if the early Christians got it wrong and now all of a sudden, the church realize the correct way of doing it.
I remember when the response of the congregation to the priest's blessings was "..and also with you...".
It was later on altered to " ...and with your spirit" Why, because it is much closer to the original "" et cum spiritu tuo.."
Any change must not alter the basic norm of the traditional mass. The idea is, if the early Christians were to be alive today and they would attend the present mass, they would still recognize the whole ceremony. It is therefore baffling why the TLM is being restricted.
Some in Rome are way too liberal
The priest is not turning his back, he is worshipping with the congregation!
Thank you, Father for addressing this! Very helpful! From the Philippines 🇵🇭, salamat po at mabuhay kayo!
Hi Minnie, I'm Filipino too. Still looking for a TLM near me at QC Kamias area. Mabuhay. Thank you Fr. Casey.
@@rosemariegabriel4456 our lady of victories it's at bishop honestos backyard in cubao
Like everything else in Vatican II, everything is left to chance. Losing the Latin tradition was a true loss.
My parish was fortunate for a few years to have a priest face ad orientum at Mass and I found my participation and sense of the mystical much more than when the priest faces the people. I’ve always felt that when the priest faces the people it gives more a theatrical impression or disconnect, like it’s something he’s doing up there and we are the viewers.
*ad orientEM
@@kevinrhatigan5656 oops, my bad 😬
Maybe it would be more mystical if you didn't see the priest at all. Just stay home on Sunday.
@@kurt4320 this sounds like a response I’d get from a curmudgeon for stating a positive experience on something. 🙄
Agreed!
Well stated...
Clear and concise. Will be sharing this for sure
Thqnk you father. Very necesary teaching. People is giving more importante to the vase than the wine.
I think this is an excellent explanation, thank you so much Father Casey, for this. It should not be simplified as a "pre-Vatican II" or polarization between those who prefer one style over another. I also appreciate how you emphasize Catochisis, liturgical education to become better informed of the Catholic traditions. I live and work in southern Italy with my husband who is Spanish, and we love your programs and podcasts. Too many rely on social media feeds for answers these days and not real sources for information on the Catholic Church. Bravo Fr Casey!
Our church has put back the large main altar that was taken out years ago, put the Communion rail back encouraging kneeing when taking the host and preferably by mouth, not hand. Our last two priests have went traditional by turning away from the people at the main alter. As being almost 70 years old, I can relate to the old way and remembering it being that way as an altar boy with Latin used. But you are correct, some are freaking out so badly that they have switched churches that say the Mass facing the people. I have a sentimental view of the more traditional way, but that's just me and my 2 cents.
Wonderful!❤️🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The first explanation that makes sense about this issue and thank you especially about the documents that most of us have not be told about in classes on the sacred Liturgy. Thank you Father from a very senior catholic!
The idea that you need to see everything on the altar to participate is absurd.
I grew up with the NO and no matter where I went I found an utter lack of enthusiasm, decorum, and participation in the mass, and outside the mass I found profound ignorance in conversation.
This actually led to me leaving the church because it was so lukewarm and casual. If the Catholic church was indistinguishable from my extended family's protestant church, what was the point?
After finally getting a nearby latin mass, I was instantly revived. Now, after 3 seperate latin mass communities I can safely say I have easily been the least enthusiastic, I have failed to be as respectful, and I am surely the most easily distracted. In all these communities I found highly intelligent people with deep knowledge about the faith and great relationships with the community and it's priests.
Some may tell lies about these people, but I know the truth. I also know that it is not an accident, and these conditions are created by the church, not the people.
I beg anyone reading this to seek out your traditional mass, drive as far as you need to. You can only understand when you see it yourself.
Yes, but why do you find all of that? Because NOW whomever attends to the TLM is a reverted (from protestantism or from NO) who decided in full conscience to do so. Who understands the meanings of the rituals and knows even their language. But at the time of the reformation of the liturgy it wasn't so. I know, my grandmother told me that very little people put attention to what the priest did or said during Mass, and many just prayed by themselves (usually the Rosary), never hearing or understanding a word of what was said (apart from the Gospel and the homily). So in a sense, the PRESENT way the TLM is celebrated and participated in is the fruit of the greater understanding of the liturgy borne out from the lyturgical reformation.
@@Laurelin70 Absolutely ridiculous.
My wife and her siblings all grew up in tlm and they put me to shame. In my current parish everyone under the age of 25 grew up in that parish in the tlm, unless you're going to tell me a 5 year old had a reversion, this is baseless speculation. The rosary is said during mass as a PARTICIPATION, not a distraction. In half the mass you are meant to be meditating as the priest prepares. There is visual language and audio cues that convey everything occurring in a more effective way than the NO. I have invited prods and NO's to view masses and they always ask the same questions about the mass because the most important moments LOOK important.
Maybe its because you're American?
@@daniel8181 No, I'm italian, and my Faith was formed through the NO, and it wasn't in any way and NEVER unrespectful. Reciting the Rosary through the Mass IS a distraction,because you're supposed to listen to the Word and also to the ritual formulas to making them your own, THEY are your prayer during Mass. Personal meditation and prayer is allowed during the common prayers and after the Communion. For the Rosary there are other moments, usually in the evening at the sunset (the hour of the "Ave Maria"). And yes,I maintain what I said: the TLM NOW is something that is usually CHOSEN by people already formed and educated into Faith. Who then educate their children and grandchildren, exactly like the people who follow the NO and are truly following their Faith. The difference is that the PRESENT TLM has followers who in majority were educated a certain way and can extract from the rituals and the stranger language all there is to extract, while the NO, being the most common form across the globe, has followers of any kind, probably also people who couldn't understand anything in the TLM and who would be like my grandmother, who didn't even understand what she was saying, often mangling the latin words of the Creed or the Pater Noster. Different needs are different, and it should be in the pastoral care of the Church that EVERYONE can approach the Holy Communion with a right awareness and understanding of what they're doing. Maybe in your country the NO masses are severely lacking in solemnity and catechetical meanings, but it's not the same everywhere.
Fortunately attendance at the TLM is growing, especially with young people and families
The only thing that makes me pause to think "ad orientum" might have more credibility is how the stance more adequately reflects the interiority of the priest "Ad Duem" .
The body mirroring the soul is important
But at the same time the priest is a stand in both for Jesus and his disciples, so it makes sense that he could face us too. I like the intention of removing any mystery about what the priest is doing, so the entire congregation can see. The veil to the holy of holies has been torn, so I do like the symbolism there. I don't really have a strong opinion about it either way, we know it's more important the state our hearts are in than the direction the priest faces. It's not like it makes the eucharist any less valid.
@@loganleroy8622But realistically, what is the priest doing in an ad orientem Mass than is made more visible in versus populum? It's only really the preparation for the actual consecration that wouldn't be visible by virtue of the priest and acolytes blocking it, but the actual elevation, the most important part, is seen regardless
@@loganleroy8622 Agreed. That's why the liturgical books call for the priest to face the People at certain time.
The priest facing the Altar is a more beautiful expression of the faith.
yup and that's why you had a DJ on Mass....
In my small community, we are just so very grateful to have a priest who comes to celebrate Sunday Mass for us. Attendance is the vital aspect.
An excellent video, as usual. Concentrate on Jesus in the Eucharist not weather you are looking at the priest or looking at this back. I have never heard this explained this way by anyone. God bless you Fr. Casey and your ministry. You are bringing so many people back to our Lord.
It’s so confusing to me the rapid pace of these changes since the council. From an American perspective the decades preceding the council was the high mark of our faith. From oppressed minority to the presidency. It’s so strange seeing such enthusiasm in changing an ancient practice that worked so well for so long.
This is blind spot for majority of US traditional leaning Catholics. You just pinpointed the challenge of the American church. This golden age of the church in the US preceding the council wasn't a global phenomenon. Church is Africa and Asia where struggling with Latin language and old rite.
Natives saw latin as another foreign language being imposed on them by the church after the colonial powers have already done similar thing .
The protestant missions actually weaponised this in their polemics against the church .
Secondly I think the US Bishop conference should find a way of retrieving some of these traditions that is cherished by the laity in the US just like their African counterparts inculcated African unique expression to Novus Order
Since we have bodies, we are our bodies in a sense, that means that what we do with our bodies matter, that's why when we pray it's good to kneel to orient ourselves towards that spiritually, hence why I think what I think regarding this
What if the altar just slowly spun around and to make everyone happy??
I've heard people joke about round churches that way. If you don't like it, sit on on the other side of the building, and Father will be facing the "right" way!"
Like the old "rotating stage" that some bands used to play on! 🥳 Yes, In The Round!
The "The Mega Church" Christian solution......... Dear Preserve us.
@@insertnamehere3106 Put the Altar on the middle of the church.
We should go old school, and have Mass at a dining room table!
I dont think the priest should face the people unless he has something to say to them, is blessing them, or is asking forgiveness of them, etc. The liturgy is to worship Christ, so we face him, including the priest.
Thanks for all the sources cited. Speaking from France, I would like to add that the issue is that without a physical reminder, many people forget the reality of the eucharistic sacrifice as explained by John Paul II in "Ecclesia de eucharistia" (it is firstly a sacrifice of the son to the Father and not to the community)
"Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit". Having said this, He breathed His last.
This means the sacrifice was to Father, not to community, or not even to Mother Mary.
"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."
Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 2:6
Does Roman Catholic Church believe in the same church that Vincent of Lerins believes in? If God commanded facing the altar and not facing people, we ought to follow how God commands us to worship. Only people that could be said to hold to the right worship would be Traditional Latin mass, Byzantine Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic/Oriental Orthodox Church.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🌅 Debate on ad orientem worship is growing in the Catholic Church.
00:50 🕊️ Ad orientem worship was the norm for most of Catholic history, focused on Christ's return from the east.
02:12 🎉 Second Vatican Council aimed for active participation, leading to priest facing the people.
03:32 👥 Celebrating Mass facing the people was encouraged but not mandated.
04:30 🔀 Both ad orientem and versus populum orientations are legitimate, with focus on spiritual orientation to Christ.
06:48 🙏 Orientation is about focusing on God, not physical direction; both orientations can lead to spiritual connection.
Made with HARPA AI
I am old enough to have been an Altar Boy during Tridentine Liturgy. Your discussion of ad orientem posture of the celebrant is the most concise and balanced I have seen. Question: Have you ever celebrated the Mass ad orientem?
A better question might have been "have you ever celebrated the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass"
He hasn't. And bearing in mind that around 90% of priests in the world haven't either it should not come as a surprise.
The Eucharist started at the Last Supper, which was the Passover meal. Jesus would not have had his back to those at the Passover table as he offered bread and wine. Since the priest is acting in persona Christi, facing those celebrating the Eucharistic meal makes sense to me. As Father Casey pointed out, in either orientation it is the devotion to God and the reverence for the real presence in the holy sacrament that is most important.
Fr. Casey, your videos are amazing. You explained this so simply and clearly. I really like how you give the reasons why. (I don't like when people say "it's how we've always done it" for anything - religious or secular. There is a reason why.) The catholic church I've visited is unique in that it isn't pews facing a pulpit and back wall, but stadium style facing the center and towards each other. The priest explained it isn't modern, but really old style, like 5th century. It was designed by the monks who worship together, towards each other. I like that the priest has the option of using a pulpit or walking around when preaching, I feel it's more of him saying I'm also one of you. Like you said at the end, it's what helps you focus in worship. I think the apostle Paul is proud.
Thank you for dealing with this issue. I grew up pre Council and remember many people going to Sunday Mass because it was a good place to get an hour a additional sleep. The Mass was in Latin and who cared what he said. The issue as I see it is that the so-called Traditionalists believe and overtly state that “ad orientum” and the Tridentine form are the ONLY proper forms of Mass and that any other form (novo Ordus) are in error. I predict a schism, if it hasn’t already happened.
Yeah the more I learn about how Latin masses were actually done and practiced, the more I’m glad for the Vatican II rubrics. I can barely follow along in bilingual masses and have a tendency to stray in thought whenever I don’t understand something, and I’m expected to last an hour?!! 😅
Being a little cheeky, I often think to myself “If TLM is sooo great and holy and keeps people in the church, why were people leaving way before Vatican II was bring brought? Why are there still Protestant groups? Why were people happy about the new mass rubrics?” Just something I’m sure will be answered a thousand different ways and will probably have a bunch of circular reasonings and anecdotes not tied to actual reality 🤭
well, sedevacantists have existed since the council. Though in practice, I think we threw the baby out with the baptismal font. The net benefit of vernacular language in the Sunday Liturgy being also contrasted with literally uncalled for, arbitrary, changes that were not and never have been specified in the Novus Ordo missals.
Versus Populum being the least of these, though still important in my view. The best way to combat this contemporarian mindset is to hold the Novus Ordo to the same standards as the Tridentine Mass. That is, you try to not rush, don't skip prayers willy nilly (slightly over half in the Novus Ordo are technically optional.) Preferably face ad orientum, but so long as Catholic reference is observed, that is what's most important.
I think it would be good to view the Novus Ordo as a sort of slightly abridged Tridentine Mass, but in YOUR language. This would make traditionalists and modernists happy, I should hope. At the end of the day, guitars, tamberines and joke sermons aren't appropriate or reverent in the slightest. But let's not throw out the baby this time, instead of ditching the Novus Ordo, we just practice it more traditionally like it's implied to supposed to.
@@wes4736 I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written. There should be room for may forms of the Mass as there are with the various Byzantine rites (and the Ambrosian rite in Milan). But unfortunately I don’t believe the so-called Traditional Catholics will accept that. Based on what I know about them they are vehemently opposed to any change in the Church that happened since the sixteenth century Council of Trent. If the Church could call that council then why don’t they accept the Vatican II Council. It boggles my mind. I’ve come to believe that the point at which a significant number of people oppose a Synod (or Council, or whatever) is the exact moment that such a synod or council needs to be called.
@@jendoe9436 Can't those same questions be turned back on the Novus Ordo? If the new liturgy was supposed to keep Catholics in the pews, why did the rate of apostasy increase after its implementation? If the new Mass was supposed to usher in an age of ecumenism and conversion, why has the percentage of Protestants in this country remained constant for 50 years? If Mass in the vernacular was supposed to aid in catechesis, why is belief in the Real Presence at an all time low? If the new rubrics are designed for more public appeal, why are traditional communities drawing a disproportionate number of young people? If the Novus Ordo was supposed to usher in a renewal of the Church, why is there a chronic priest shortage? Why are so many churches closing? If you think all these things would've come to pass with the TLM anyway, then what was the point of changing the liturgy?
@@BrewMeister27 Because that’s the thing with humans: we’re fickle and change our minds all the time.
I’m not saying the NO doesn’t have issues, but that’s due to implementation and not the basis itself. Same issue with the TLM when it was the only one around, unless you really think TLM was always practiced perfectly every time and no one ever left the faith after attending it.
At the end of the day, it’s the person who makes that decision to hold fast to the faith. Sometimes people are given the tools to make it easy, like freedom of religion, strong Catholic family values, good communities, etc. Sometimes it’s more difficult in places where Catholics and Christians in general are persecuted, one has a broken family life, or something happens that pushes them away from the faith.
One group may need the bells and whistles of TLM to stay firm, others are good with a NO. As long as both forms are being conducted according to the proper rubrics, I don’t see any issues.
As for those wanting TLM, they are self selecting themselves for it because they have a comparison to draw on. Something most in the past didn’t have. I bet if they grew up in a poorly performed TLM, they may move away from that parish and find one that fits them better. Or like others said around that time, leave the faith entirely.
I’m not one to demean another’s expression of faith when they are in compliance with Rome. If TLM rocks your boat, okay. If NO does it for ya, go ahead. I’m not prideful enough to assert my form of expression is greater than another’s based solely on physical actions. Some of the most kindest, charitable people I know attend NO, and some of the most intolerant have been extreme TLM goers.
I loved your conclusion that what is important is focusing on the Eucharist.
Nice man. Fully agree with everything. I ended up learning about the old Latin Rite about a year ago and loved it. But now I can definitely see why The Church thought it might be a good idea to have the priest face the people. However now knowing what the true point of it is, I feel I can appreciate both to their fullest extent now. Thank you father!
I don't know what it is but there seems to be something about TLM and its rigidness that leaves little room for liturgical abuse than the NO does. It could be because there are so few parishes that celebrate TLM that you would expect those ones to have delved deeper in to the faith. I've been going to NO Masses my entire life until just last year when I started going to TLM and the first NO Mass I went to that felt on par with TLM was at my grandmother's funeral earlier this year.
TLM is not honest. The people should be standing (as it says at the beginning of the canon), should not include Filioque in the creed, should offer the cup, and should observe the proper order (traditional) of the sacraments of initiation
In large part, this is due to a confirmation bias. Talk to anyone who went to Mass before the Council. There were plenty of abuses. Nowadays, any priest who wishes to celebrate the TLM will generally be a priest who cares deeply about the traditional liturgy, because he has to go out of his way to celebrate it.
@@michaelhoelscher5079yeah! The norm is always more prone to abuses than the “extraordinary” or the exception.
Muchas gracias Padre, como siempre sus palabras son muy claras y principalmente una muy importante catequesis
How can a priest have his back to God? Isn't God everywhere? I don't think God is so petty as to be offended by which direction people are facing. I believe a priest's job is to continuously lead people to God and Jesus Christ not only in ritual but in action, because we will always stray, and in that sense, the Church is failing on a massive scale, and thus failing God. While traditions can be beautiful and comforting, they can't get in the way of the Church's purpose to exist.
The Church is bleeding followers so much so that even the original countries that so fervently brought the faith to the America's are now among the least faithful. We don't live in a world where our faith is to be taken for granted. It has to be actively ignited because God apparently didn't create a loyal humanity. We lose the light. Every single last one of us loses the light. Whenever we act against one another, we lose the light. Whenever we behave selfishly or with greed, we lose the light. Whenever we harbor fear, hate, and intolerance, we lose the light. We lose the light almost every single day. We need a Church that is willing to get its robes filthy and shredded and runs to save us, that grabs us in its arms to save us, that willingly and unreservedly steps directly in the line of danger to save us, and that does so purely with the faith in the light and love Jesus Christ has for even the least among us. That isn't the Church we have today.
I think that it’s difficult for people to really orient themselves spiritually, we often don’t usually orient ourselves beyond what we see. At my parish, we celebrate Ad Orientam for one of the Mass on Sunday and at the beautiful High altar with altar rails and communion patens, with organ and chant, with Latin and reverence. It is often truly advisable to make the liturgy as reverent and ornamental as possible, because we can greater comprehend the solemnity of Mass and the majesty of God in this way. Prayers to you Father, may God sustain you
Awesome, Amen, Thank you Fr Casey!!!👍👍🤗🙏🙏🙏❤️
As somenone who has problems with keeping attention for long periods, is a visual learner and has difficulty understanding voices when they are muffled... Ad orientem is like a nightmare for me, I cant understand a single things that happens and my mind starts going to the clouds. I agree that it is beautiful and holy but for me I prefer it when the priest faces us, which is why The Church gives us a lot of options for Rites, all of the beautiful and Holy, to be able to Choose which one is better for you Spiritually
me too and I hate how so many who want Latin try to demonize NO instead of saying it's a preference of theirs. It's always they esthetics, the "feeling" they get. Just like some like simple churches and some like highly ornate. I find in the middle the best, I think too much makes me distracted and is less pretty unless its Michelangelo. : )
I see your point, but it brings up the old question of “If a priest does a ritual, and nobody is there to see it, did it actually happen?” The answer is yes, the faithful don’t need to see and hear everything that happens. Try the Byzantine rite where there is a wall between you and the sanctuary, and yet they are basically the gold standard for laity-participation.
It is a simple fact that when a priest faces the congregation, the people will pay attention to the details of the personhood of the pastor: his mannerisms, etc. The evidence of mass attendence since speaks for itself. How many of you had to leave or have separated yourselves from a parish because of the impressions made by a priest? You see too much of their humanity and not enough of Jesus's divinity. Seeing priests less, ironically, I argue, will bring more back into the fold as it will be less about the pastor and more about the sacrifice.
Hello, thank you for your good work. Just suggest something:
I believe it would be beneficial to those that want to explore more this kind of questions, if you could share the links of the documents you cite on the description. Most if not all are on the internet, this way it would be easier to people that want to study the documents and so strengthen their faith and the teachings of the Church, to reach them.
(Sorry if my English isn't that good, I'm Portuguese)
Native English speaker here; no need to apologize! Your English is very good.
English is better than mine, and point well made! I love that here I always find good questions that I am glad someone thought to ask!
I recommend reading:
“How Christ Said the First Mass: or the Rites and Ceremonies of Jesus and the Apostles, Foretold in the Hebrew Passover” by Rev. James L. Meagher
It was first published in 1906 and provides a great historical context.
At our parish, all but the anticipated Saturday mass is offered ad orientem. I’ve been impressed with what a difference this makes with regards to the ordinary liturgy’s facilitation of the active participation desired by the council.
I dont disagree with much of what you say, but this idea that smaller or more formal aspects of the liturgical celebration do not matter except for X -- this is a stupid trope that needs to go. This minimalistic reductionism claiming that we should "focus on what matters" or saying that all these little things are unimportant because "the only important thing is X." If that is so then why do we not just tear down all the images like the Calvinists did? So we can focus on what is the most important and completely declutter our spirituality of minor distractions?
No, in reality the Church has given us a holistic approach to liturgy that is rich and complex and has been carefully laid out for us in a variety of texts to clarify and regulate exactly what it is supposed to be, and it is not appropriate to look at it from a dumb reductionist perspective of ignoring the importance of everything except whatever the celebrant deems to be actually important. The deliberately narrow yet liberalized approach to interpreting how liturgy should be conducted, by preferring some parts as important and everything else as unimportant, this is why the liturgy is so screwed up in this country, and why the natural reaction has emerged in the form of a militant cult of TLM rad trad activists.
In reality we need more Novus Ordo priests and lay people who are literate about what the liturgy actually is, rubrics and general instruction and all the other important texts and documents, and then ACTUALLY DO THAT instead of selectively omitting or altering it to be whatever the priest feels like doing today, or worse like Aaron being made to make a golden calf because the people made him do it.
Thanks for the clarification! This was very educational!
Thanks for this Padre. I was worried that i was wrong not to care very much. While I like the idea of gathering "around the table" I figured that as long as we're all facing the altar.... no harm no foul as it were.
The Catholics in the pews in front of me were also turning their back to me… How dare they
Lol 😂
Just finished the bacon, got my coffee, ready for the cataclysmic tea.
I agree that what matters is not how priests position themselves, but delivering the word of God, what i don't agree that all churches deliver the same. There are churches inviting ltgbq+ inciting acceptance of same, and that is a disrespect to the holiest place. Additionally, it's not in the bible. All are children of God, but all must respect the house of God, and some priests are not abiding by the catechism.
In this case, going "backwards" is a step forward.
Excellent video Father! Thank you!
Lovely video! I would love a video about the history of the evolution of the liturgy (Sarum to the TLM, etc....) Thank you and God Bless!
I think the issue here is not whether one is correct or better than the other. The big problem is the prohibition one which is the traditional norm. I asked our parish priest if we could celebrate mass traditionally once in a while, and his answer was he had to have permission from the bishop. Why?????
Because many traditionalist priests and groups were ridiculing the NO publicly, now their local Bishop have another way of preventing it.
@@romerojuniorarts Are you saying vengeance?
@normarosales1768 It isn't vengeance. It is to shepherd the flock! The extraordinary rite is Church patrimony, and people with bad intentions shouldn't be allowed to use it to cause divisions in the Church.
@@romerojuniorarts Are you saying that priests who celebrate traditional mass have bad intentions?
@@normarosales1768 Not all of them. But many people who wants the TLM yes, absolutely. I would remind you of the Bishop Lefebvre in France, who became schismatic (and many faithful with him) just because of these kind of issues. For many, attending the TLM is a way to show their refusal of the present Pope.
Spot on speak!
Our world and our Church would be a better place if people were more preoccupied by their own moral orientation than a priest's orientation during the mass. While this is all very interesting, and I thank you, Father Casey, for producing such an informative video on this topic, I think too many of our fellow Catholics overly concern themselves on such procedural minutiae at the expense of their own moral betterment and the improvement of the lives of others.
You are right in pointing out that the moral / spiritual orientation is far more important, yet - given that we are not only spirit but also body - what you call “procedural minutiae” can have a deep positive or negative effect on our spiritual orientation.
It becomes more difficult to focus on Christ when the celebrant makes himself the focus by interjecting his own quirks into the Mass.
Great Video! I much prefer ad orientem and I think versus populum has been a net negative. However pastorally I think the ideal move for the Latin rite is to have half versus populum (during liturgy of the word) and half ad orientem (during liturgy of the Eucharist). The priest would of course turn around to face the people at certain points during the liturgy of the Eucharist as he does in the TLM. This to me would help preserve the dual symbolism of meal and sacrifice in the liturgy.
We should also go back to doing readings on the altar, since it is supposed to be its own little “sacrifice of praise”. This concept is now lost on the people since we have some old lady do it from a pulpit.
Thank you for that thorough explanation and sensible advice!
Nice job, Father. Thank you for your balanced and Christ-centered approach.
I’m shocked by the number of people who view the priest’s physical orientation as a determining indicator of reverence or absence thereof during the mass.
Thank you Father for this video. Our home parish celebrates the Mass Versus Populum but the parish I attend for daily Mass celebrates the Mass Ad Orientem. I grew up pre-Vatican II so Ad Orientem was normal. I appreciate the reason for the priest facing the people and allowing the people to see so I have no issues. I appreciate both and at my age I don't feel either helps or prevents me from fully participating fully in the Mass. Out of curiosity Father, judging from your opening statement, I believe you celebrate the Mass Versus Populum. Have you ever celebrated the Mass Ad Orientem? Thanks again for your ministry, your love of your vocation and this UA-cam channel.
Absolute PROTESTANT NONSENSE
Dude, simmer down.
As a "senior citizen" at 67, I have vague memories of attending Mass in the old Latin Rite and the Priests back to the congregation. I hold no malice toward Vatican II for changing the Mass. In my adult life, I attended Mass in many different countries and languages and always knew what was going on and what's next, I always felt at home at any Mass.
The only thing I have against the 1962 revisions to the Latin Mass is that many celebrating Priests do not hold up the Host Body of Christ or the Chalice or His Holy Blood ABOVE their head. I rarely see it in the current Novus Ordum Mass. In the old Latin Mass this is the whole gist of the Holy Sacrifice The Mass for me.
I don't know if the 1962 revision changed that or not, I have yet to find out officially.
I checked my missal, which has the rubrics printed in it. It seems like the priest is supposed to elevate the Host and then the chalice high enough so that the people can easily see them.
That said, there may be legitimate reasons a priest might not do so, either because of an injury or disability or age.
That is the "ostensio": the priest show the Holy Host and Chalice to the Assembly. That's the whole gist of that gesture. Until they are visible to all the people in the church, they are good. Nothing more.
Eastern Rite priests always have and still do face the altar except for during the homily.
Every priest faces the altar.
@@amdg672 To be more specific, they face EAST toward the altar.
This is splitting my church into two. I belong to the Syro Malabar Church. Our tradition is to face towards east. Because of the involvements of the Roman Catholic church, some priests started doing it like the Roman Catholics do. Recently the Pope asked all oriental catholic churches to go back to their roots. Now the biggest diocese in my church is protesting it.
So are more comfortable with God as the center of our worship (circle), or with God calling us and leading us on (column)? Both are great symbolism.
Exactly.
Thank you for the excellent lecture. Most probably the best thing is the position of some Roman basilicas in which the church is oriented that the priest face east and the people in the same direction
Thank you Father for a well balanced discussion. Some Cathloic youtubers should learn from this.
I’m from the Eastern syro-malabar rite and when our priests decided to face away from the crowd during certain parts of mass a parishioner objected and said “I don’t think I can receive holy communion after spending the whole mass looking at the priest’s ‘behind’ (to put it lightly)”.
The priest just smiled and replied “imagine what difficulty everyone who is not in the first row must be in, they’re not just seeing my back, but of all those standing before them. I hope to see you in the front pew from now on.”
I had to hold in my laughter not to offend the poor man. Never saw him in the front row though🥲
Poor ernakulam fools
Even before the Council, it was not required that the priest face the apse rather than face the altar and people. Fr. Pius Parsch was a great promoter of facing the people and altar rather than facing the apse.
Really really good! Thanks for the clarification Father. Why was this so hard to explain? You did it beautifully. Latin or Novus, it’s still the same: orientation towards God. Really great.
When the priest is facing the Tabernacle he's not "tempted" to improvise. When the priest is facing the people, there's a temptation to perform, to captivate attention etc. And if we believe God is truly present in the Tabernacle how does it make sense to turn our back to Him.
@@amdg672 This thing of priests becoming "performers" must be an American thing. I've attended Mass for all my life, in different churches and cities in Italy, and never once found a priest "performing" or "improvising" during Mass, especially during the Eucharistic rite. In Italy usually the people complain that the Mass is boring and always the same...
@@Laurelin70ehhhh… I used to think the same thing, until I learned what the rubrics actually were and realized most of what I experienced wasn’t how it was supposed to be…
@@EpoRose1 In Italy? I used to read the official Missal, and what I read was what I watched and heard on the altar. Every. Single. Time. The only occasions when the priests "improvised" were during "children masses", and NEVER during the Eucharistic rite.
“The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”.
-Pope Benedict XVI
The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg. 80
Always a thumbs up for Pope Benedict 👍
I dislike the argument that it’s “Not how we physically orient ourselves, but how we spiritually orient ourselves to Christ.”
We are creatures of both spirit AND body. When we receive the Holy Eucharist, we kneel out of respect and reverence for the presence of God. This is an act we do with our BODIES, propelled by the will of the spirit. It’s a unitive act that shows that we are working both forms of being that God gave us, to revere Christ.
How we use our bodies to show honor and submission to God matters.
And as I said in the video, no matter which way you face your are *physically* orienting yourself to Christ as well. In facing East, you are not focused on the back wall but on Christ on the altar. When facing the people, everyone is focusing on the sacrifice on the altar.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I agree with this sentiment. And yet sadly, in several circumstances across the globe and in the US in particular, various bishops have disciplined or removed clerics from parishes, limited or banned ad orientem in the Novus Ordo, and imposed the perception of a ghettoing of those who are spiritually nourished by this posture. While it may not be meant as an action to foment division, in practice this is what occurs.
Thank you for the measured video. While I may prefer the old rite and ad orientem, level-headed persons expressing reasons in charity is much appreciated. Many blessings!
@@BreakingInTheHabit: Good point, actually. In both orientations, the priest is technically facing the altar.
Overall, I don't know that it's the orientation itself that creates the impression that the Mass is about the people or the priest, but more about the context. For example, the design of the altar, catechesis, the ability of the priest to "decrease" in relation to the altar, lighting, and the decor on and upon the altar.
Done properly, in either orientation, these factors will direct everyone, body and soul, toward the sacrifice on the altar.
Done improperly (deliberately or accidently), in either orientation, it'll be misdirected toward the priest/people.
In the TLM the people stood…..read the Latin. “Omnium circumstantial”@@tonyalongi4409
I grew up with the Tridentine Mass, and have never liked Novus Ordo.
I like both forms but there really is something special about Ad Orientem
It's surprising that this video should come up now. I just returned from vacation. The church I attended in northern Virginia was very different than mine on Long Island. The priest faced away from the congregation during the prayers, and everyone knelt for Communion. I found it odd. I know that facing away was the old style of Mass, but I didn't know it was done anywhere any more. Thank you for explaining everything.
Do you remember the name of the Parish you attended?
It was St. John the Baptist in Front Royal, Virginia.
Been to masses with the priest facing the crucifix and facing the congregation.
Personally, I prefer when a priest faces the congregation as I enjoy seeing the process and it makes me more appreciative of seeing common bread and wine be transformed before my eyes. I understand the sacrificial emphasis when the priest faces the crucifix, but that does not resonate as much with me.
I´m pretty sure for which form it was that you felt the need to clarify that "with proper catechesis" thing...
You gotta give it to him, he really is not afraid of annoying other Catholics.
Really liking this explanation! I think the biggest divide honestly is the generations and the type of world we grew up in being so different. Have you done a video on Tabernacle placement before? This seems to be a big issue in some churches where some still have Jesus front and center behind the altar, where others have the tabernacle in a side chapel. This tends to be the issue I see more problematic with the focus of the congregation. When the tabernacle is moved, but then the priests chair is placed behind the altar.
Real question for Father Casey @BreakingInTheHabit , or anyone else who knows: If versus populum is supposed to offer a means of deeper participation what am I supposed to be seeing or noticing when the priest celebrates versus populum that I don't see at an ad orientem service? I know the bread and water and wine are on the altar, I saw them during the offertory procession, and I can see the priest lifting the host and chalice after consecration. I can hear him fine, so I know where we are in the prayer. What does versus populum show me during the liturgy that I don't already see? Tldr: What are my ad orientem priests hiding from me?!? Lol.
Right ! Plus - We use the phrase “ Sacred Mysteries “ when describing the Mass. We’re not supposed to see and hear everything. Nor, can we ever fully understand them.
Father won’t admit it, but most of the changes to the Mass since 1965 had to do with ecumenism. Make the Mass look more Protestant to draw them back to the fold. It failed.
@markredman4497 I don't necessarily think that a lack of knowledge of the rite is any benefit. I would point out what Pope Francis wrote in Desiderio Desideravi:
"It is said that the sense of mystery has been removed from the celebration. The astonishment or wonder of which I speak is not some sort of being overcome in the face of an obscure reality or a mysterious rite. It is, on the contrary, marvelling at the fact that the salvific plan of God has been revealed in the paschal deed of Jesus (cf. Eph 1:3-14), and the power of this paschal deed continues to reach us in the celebration of the “mysteries,” of the sacraments. It is still true that the fullness of revelation has, in respect to our human finitude, an abundance that transcends us and will find its fulfilment at the end of time when the Lord will return. But if the astonishment is of the right kind, then there is no risk that the otherness of God’s presence will not be perceived, even within the closeness that the Incarnation intends.... Beauty, just like truth, always engenders wonder, and when these are referred to the mystery of God, they lead to adoration."
The mystery in question is the Pachal Mystery, not some disconnect between us and the finer symbolism of the ritual of the Mass.
@@WT-Sherman This way to understand the "mysterium" is a pagan one.
I spent years following Priests as opposed to Christ. I am not knocking personalities, but once I understood why my experience was unpleasant every time change was experienced, God gave me enough insight as to what I was doing wrong. I appreciate your honesty and constant attempts to make us better. Love and prayers Brother.
And yet facing the people does tend to lead to priest orientation instead of God orientation.