Here's an interesting article on the move in Rome to recapture the "ad Orientem" position of the priest in celebrating the Eucharist. There's also a great section by Pr. Mason Beecroft on the the revival and spread of the practice among Lutherans. It was nearly universal in Lutheranism prior to the 1960's when Rome caught the disease and passed it along to us. Lutheran liturgy has almost always been rather slim on rubrical directions, which gives the rubrics that are included a greater force. And this was a nearly universal rubric in Lutheran liturgy: "The celebrant turns to the altar and chants the Our Father and the Words of our Lord." It's wonderful to see more pastors and parishes rethinking this, and joining together to all pray in the same direction again. Here's the link:
click here
13 comments:
I'm a bit lost here. The article speaks of the Lutherans using a table for Holy Communion and reverting back to the altar, I'm all for that...
Or are you talking about the consecration "Ad Orientem", which, with a non-wall altar (not table), I thought the evangelical practice was facing the people on Luther's advice?
I'm so confused!
Ryan,
You are not alone! :)
You are correct that Luther advised celebrating the Eucharist across the table. He did so based on a faulty understanding of how tables would have worked - "As Christ doubtless did," Luther says. But tables in oriental culture were more like a U and the host sat at the center and the people sat on the same side as the host, with the middle open for servers to bring and tend the food. Thus, DaVinci was essentially correct in how he portrayed it. And in any case, Lutherans overwhelmingly did NOT follow Luther's words on this. The consecration was to be said with the pastor and people facing together the same direction. It was an innovation copied from Rome in the 1960's when Lutherans began yanking their altars from the walls and celebrating behind them, facing the people. True, they had Luther's words to "back it up," but they ignored the weight of the history of the Christian people (including their Lutheran forebears) in facing the same direction AS the people as the consecration took place. Just experience the one and the other. It's a difference that is hard to put into words, but something changes in perception about what is happening.
Fr. Weedon,
Thanks for the link. I gave him an earful over the phone and did not expect to be quoted in the paper.
In my study I came across Luther's statement as well. It is a bit unfortunate, IMO, and I am glad that nobody followed his advice!
I agree that it is hard to express the difference, but I'm not sure I could celebrate versus populum after praying ad orientem.
We have rubrics? :)
+Mason
Explain how that direction fits better with Formula VII? I would argue that standing behind the altar facing the people better fits the nature of the consecration as expressed in Formula VII and the Large Catechism.
Pr. John Frahm
BTW, I believe Frank Senn has documented where early Lutherans did in some places pull the altars away from the wall.
JAF
It makes sense for Rome to go back to the other way, as the sacrifice of the Mass is best done the other way, if they are consistent.
Pastor Frahm,
Does it not give pause that the formulators of the Formula and those who signed it overwhelmingly practiced the consecration FACING the altar? Check out the evidence in Sehling - it's pretty convincing. And it continued in the Missouri Synod right up till the middle of the 20th Century. The TLH specifically lists the Verba Christi as a sacrificial element for which the pastor is to face the altar. It was quite a novel thing when pastors begin facing the people for this among us. And though Luther himself spoke of facing the people in theory, in practice this did not happen. At Wittenberg, Musculus observed the Mass on Exaudi, May 28, 1536. He specifically notes (with disapproval!) "Then he sang the Words of Institution with his back to the people."
Pastor Weedon,
Could you elaborate on why the "TLH specifically lists the Verba Christi as a sacrificial element for which the pastor is to face the altar"? Although I know the historic Lutheran practice was to face liturgical east, I've never been able to square this with their emphasis upon the unilateral Gospel nature of the sacrament. Granted, theologians in the age of orthodoxy recognized some sacrifical aspects of the service of Holy Communion, but the emphasis on Gospel to me seems to make the celebrant facing the people a more instructive rubric. I would be very interested to hear a thorough explanation of this point.
Bethany
How does ad orientem take away from the unilateral gospel nature of the sacrament? The Mass is not primarily instructive, cognitive or pedagogical. How could this be an issue among confessional lutherans. Now I am confused. I am more confused than usual, which is saying something.
+Masaon
Besides, historical precedent is no excuse for impoverished ritual. Who cares what Luther did or did not do! The main question should be is it appropriate to our confession of faith.
Now, I have much to repent of in terms of liturgical practice, but the typical LCMS approaches are less than convincing.
+Mason
At least every Roman Catholic Mass that I've attended had the entire service done versum populum. This way liturgical position is essentially meaningless, but it is at least consistently meaningless.
What drives me up the wall is our Lutheran practice in which the pastor says the invocation (well, some do), psalm and every other prayer in the service ad orientem, but then says those near the consecration versum populum. Why would a pastor retain a meaningful posture for the other prayers just to contradict it in prayers such as the Proper Preface and Lord's Prayer?
One of the few things I figured out as a child (on rare visits to my grandparents' church) is that there are reasons the pastor speaks from different places in the church and facing in different directions. If these positions become divorced of their meaning, that's another weapon for the anti-liturgical crowd to accuse us of meaningless, irrelevant practices.
It is also quite unsettling to make eye contact with the pastor while he's talking to God. I can't look at the altar crucifix in my church from the Preface to the Agnus Dei without seeing the pastor's face behind it. As the article notes, the ad orientem posture eliminates this distraction for both the celebrant and congregation.
I know some people will say that the Consecration itself is sacramental in nature and the pastor should therefore face the people. I, too, would be interested in more information on the sacrificial aspects of the Eucharist. It appears that it is an "S-word" that must be avoided when discussing the Eucharist in certain Lutheran circles lest one be accused of being a closet Papist, so I would like to understand this better.
The weakest practice I know is when the pastor faces the congregation with his back to the altar. Some do this holding the elements in front of them, but I have known two pastors who have actually left them on the altar behind them while saying the Verba at the congregation (I have not communed in this case, I'm curious what wiser people than I have to say about this).
Another issue is the idea (unfortunately seen in Luther's advice) that the sacrament is to be celebrated "as Christ doubtless did." I'm not saying that we should try to do things differently, just that we recognise that some things have changed. The Supper in the context of a pastor and congregation cannot be celebrated in exactly the same way as our Saviour did with his disciples. Rather than trying to make our celebration of the Sacrament as exact a dramatic re-enactment of the Last Supper as possible, would it not be best to try to celebrate it in as reverent and edifying a manner as possible for the congregation?
Jeremy,
On sacrificial aspects of the Eucharist, you might be interested in a little paper I drew up a while ago:
Revisiting the Sacrifice of the Mass
These are great reflections, Pastors Weedon and Beecroft. Thanks for the link. I've moved around quite a lot over the years and therefore have been to many Lutheran churches in different parts of the country. My wife and I tried to recall how many had the altar away from the wall and we could only think of one. I've always assumed the altar against the wall was standard and ad orientem would be your only choice.
As a side note, at Notre Dame, the basilica has three altars. The first one, a beautiful baroque altar designed by Bernini, which incorporates a piece of wood from the altar used by St. Peter himself to celebrate the Eucharist, is against the east wall in the apse. The second, a French gothic altar, is too ornate for a post-Vatican II Mass. The third is a simple table and the priest stands behind it.
Post a Comment