People, Look East!

It seems a bit of a firestorm has erupted and is spreading of late, whereby some bishops have forbidden their priests to offer Holy Mass “Ad Orientem,” that is, facing liturgical (east or the tabernacle), so that priest and people, together, face the same direction. Such directives have come from Chicago (well known for its liturgical propriety), Cincinnati, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh, with varying degrees, from a total prohibition to a demand to seek permission of the Ordinary.

Let us be clear at the outset: There is not a word in Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium raising this topic and, further, no bishop has the authority to enact such a regulation. Now, let’s examine the issue calmly and seriously.

Sometimes, a bishop bases his decision on Paragraph 299 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which reads: “The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” On a certain reading, it would seem that what is “desirable wherever possible” is that Mass be celebrated “facing the people.” However, that interpretation arises from a clunky English translation of the Latin original. In the Latin, the English clause, “which is desirable. . . .” is introduced by the neuter relative pronoun “quod” (which). To what word in the main clause is that pronoun referring? It is “altare seiunctum” (altar separated from the wall). In other words, building an altar away from the wall is desirable. Why? So that the priest can circumambulate the altar for the incensations – and also to celebrate facing the people.

In other words, the rubric is not weighing in on the desirability of Mass “versus populum”; it is weighing in on the issue of an altar’s construction.

Secondly, if celebration facing the people were normative, why do the rubrics consistently direct the priest to turn and face the people for the various greetings or directives (e.g., “The Lord be with you”; “Pray, brethren”; “The peace of the Lord be with you”; “Behold the Lamb of God”; the concluding rites). To be sure, the presumption is that at other times, the priest is not facing the people!

Thirdly, some bishops have expressed concern that a proper catechesis precede the change in the priest’s direction. That is a legitimate concern, however, the catechesis need not be a years-long explanation. A few years ago, I was the keynote speaker at a major conference in Ireland and the principal celebrant of two of the Masses. At dinner, the local Ordinary said, “I understand you’re going to celebrate Mass tomorrow facing East. How do you think the people will react?” I assured him I planned on giving a brief but cogent catechesis beforehand. Which I did, giving the historical background and the basic rationale, namely, that when we talk to the people, we face the people; when we talk to God, we face God. No one suffered shock, requiring an ambulance ride to the emergency room. Interestingly, the bishop himself (who had been skeptical) remarked that my explanation took into consideration all the concerns and that he didn’t notice any discomfort among the congregation.

And why would there be? For more than a quarter of a century, I have assisted at Holy Innocents Church in Midtown Manhattan. For years, I celebrated a Latin Mass there according to the Usus Recentior, facing East, with not a single problem. The parish has five daily Masses (four in the vernacular and the fifth in the Usus Antiquior); for the past six years, all the Masses have been offered Ad Orientem, again, with no pastoral difficulties. Interestingly, visitors (who abound) often remark about how much they appreciate the experience, frequently with comments like, “It was much more prayerful.”

Further, most priests will say that, once they have offered Holy Mass Ad Orientem, they too find it far easier to celebrate. Mass facing the people facilitates clericalism as the priest becomes the center of attention, leading some priests to take on the role of a ring-master for their liturgical circus. After all, does it make any sense to pray, “To you, therefore, most merciful Father,” staring at an assembly of onlookers? The only complaints I have ever encountered have come from octogenarian left-over hippies; they are the real ones who ought to heed Papa Bergoglio’s assault on “backwardism” in their desire to return to the nuttiness of the 1960s. No, Adelante, as he often presses. Move forward, leave behind the 60s!

Can a bishop mandate which of the three forms of the Penitential Act a priest must use? Which Eucharistic Prayer? That he offer the Sign of Peace? Of course not. Nor does he have the authority to mandate versus populum celebrations.¹ As one venerable Jesuit mantra would have it: “I have no obligation to obey what you have no right to command.” Which gets to the heart of the matter.

As I have noted elsewhere, for the past decade, we have been living under a pontificate of lawlessness and brute force. Hence, the barrage of motu proprios or just outright disregard for settled norms and even doctrine. Cardinal Alan Roche, prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, has taken his cues from Francis, engaging in draconian measures and – contrary to canon law, Vatican II’s theology of collegiality, and the incessant papal appeals for synodality – has arrogated to himself the lawful rights and responsibilities of diocesan bishops.

Now, it seems that some diocesan bishops have taken their cue from Roche in their attempts to circumscribe the legitimate autonomy of priests. Why don’t bishops fight Roche for his incursions on their rightful authority, rather than bullying their priests? Being old enough to remember, I find myself experiencing ecclesiastical whiplash as we witness the revival of the liberal dictatorship of the immediate post-conciliar era.

Bishops behaving in this way abuse their authority and cause disregard and disrespect for legitimate authority. Truth be told, most of those bishops are selective in their call for absolute obedience, epitomizing the Irish proverb that “the willing horse gets flogged the most.” They do not enforce genuine liturgical norms because they know they will not be heeded. No, they operate like the delusional king in The Little Prince, who tells his planetary visitor that everything in his kingdom obeys him, even the sun which rises when he tells it to rise at dawn and which sets when he tells it to set at dusk. The Little Prince astutely observes that “you’re only telling it to do what it would do, anyway.” Comes the royal reply: “The secret for a successful king: Never give a command that you know will not be obeyed.”

The sad – and relatively unspoken – part of the whole saga is that episcopal overreach is worsening priestly morale, which is already at a very low ebb. Bishops need to take seriously the wise counsel of Sirach: “Fathers, do not provoke your sons to anger” (6:4). The seemingly endless onslaught on traditional ways of living and doing are driving many clergy and laity into extremist positions. Faithful whom I have known for decades as centrist Catholics have moved very far to the right, thanks to the lunacy promoted at times over the past ten years. And many others have been driven into the waiting and welcoming arms of the Lefebvrists or even sede vacantists.

Simply put: Out-of-control liberals are shooting themselves in the foot. In truth, they are doing exactly what Our Lord accused St. Paul of doing in his opposition to “The Way”; they are “kicking against the goad” (Acts 26:14), which is an exercise in futility. How so? In short order, the young “backward-looking” priests will be the only players left, and their current persecutors will have made them exponentially more “traditional.”

While we’re talking about episcopal authority over the Sacred Liturgy, let’s sweep away another misconception. No bishop can forbid a priest from celebrating the current form of the Mass in Latin. The Code of Canon Law stipulates: “The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved” (c. 928). No one ever needs permission to celebrate in Latin; permission is needed for the vernacular.

To conclude, I would like to offer all bishops a modest proposal in two parts as we go through a supposed “Eucharistic Revival.” Deal with the phenomenon of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and the practice of Communion-in-the-hand. You see, those are two areas where bishops do have the right to intervene.

So, first, in my work, I regularly visit up to 15 or 20 dioceses every year. It is a rarity to come upon a parish or other institution that does not employ so-called “Eucharistic ministers.” And I have not found a single one whose use corresponds to the requirements of Paul VI’s Immensae Caritatis, the Code of Canon Law, or Redemptionis Sacramentum. As one woman corrected me, “No, I am an ordinary minister of Communion. I do it all the time.” Of course, she is right.

Secondly, if an episcopal conference votes in favor of Communion-in-the-hand and has that vote ratified by the Holy See, every diocesan bishop still has the right to restrict the practice in his own diocese. Yet even the most “conservative” bishops are loathe to do so (all the while privately decrying the practice) because they fear all liturgical hell would break loose.

Those two practices – never even remotely envisioned by Vatican II – have become sacred cows. And so, some bishops content themselves with flogging the willing horse. Bad theology and even worse psychology.

Endnote:

¹In a strange twist of events, quite counter-intuitively, some readers may recall the battle royale among the Syro-Malabar Catholics in India over this very issue and the demand of Pope Francis that they return to the immemorial tradition of celebrating the Eucharist ad Orientem! Unfortunately, the rebellion continues. At the same time, Francis publicly humiliated Cardinal Robert Sarah (then prefect of Divine Worship) for suggesting the same for the Roman Rite!

Catholic World Report