www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Celebrating the Divine Liturgy "facing the people"

Photo [melkite.org.au] of His Beatitude Patriarch Gregorios III celebrating Divine Liturgy facing the people in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel of the basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The occasion was The Sixth Congress of the Bishops of Emigration in Acapulco and Mexico City, Mexico in November 2008.

Gotta say, that looks plain weird.

Somehow, even the word "latinisation" for the Westward celebration of the Eucharist is a misnomer, since even the Liturgy of the Latin Church should not be celebrated in this manner. Would that Pope Benedict had been able to eradicate this impious practice in the Latin Church before his retirement! It makes the Bishop or priest into a performer, always cognisant of how he "looks" to the people rather than doing what he is there to do: pray to God on behalf of the people. The Orthodox or Greek Catholic hierarch or presbyter who dares to adopt the practice of serving the Liturgy from the rear of the Holy Table betrays his tradition.

Archpriest David Straut

Versus populum was used in the relatively small number of Churches that were "occidented"; i.e., which had the altar at the west end of the building. Therefore, when the celebrant stood behind the altar facing the people, he was "facing east". For topographical reasons, St. Basilica was occidented--it was the only way to get the altar immediately above Peter's Tomb; when Constantine's basilica was replaced, the new church was also occidented for the same reason. It is believed that the congregation in Old St. Peters would actually turn around at the Lord's Prayer and the Canon, so that everybody would be facing east--even though this meant turning their backs on the altar.

Perhaps one of the problems with de-Latinization efforts in the wake of Vatican II, is that there has not be an equally active RE-Easternization?

This made me weep and gave me a migraine at the same time.

Dear Royal Stuart,

Our old parish priest would have agreed with you. This is why he preferred that we call ourselves "Orthodox" period.

The term "Eastern Catholic" could suggest that someone is a "funny Catholic"and not truly universal etc.

You've hit the nail on the head when you say that we need to feel comfortable and complete in our own skin.

Alex

Dear DMD,

You are right.

However, I wonder if even "Latinization" isn't the whole story here.

Could it be that there are those who imitate Latin traditions because they want to be "modern" with shorter prayers and otherwise be more "with it."

When I attend a Latin Catholic college (big mistake), my teachers would constantly harass me by saying why my EC parish "hasn't accepted the NO norms yet." And also they would ask me why I just don't move over to a Latin parish and leave my old=fashioned parish behind . . .

I don't believe this has anything to do with Latinization but with anxiety about whether one is accepted as being "modern."

Alex

Dear Griego Amigo,

Yes, in western Canada there were UGCC parishes (when I was in high school) that began serving DL facing the people and our religious orders, male and female, began sending out flyers promoting this as something that should be normative throughout the UGCC.

If you'll forgive the pun, this was no "occident."

Our Latin-minded religious orders were and are deathly afraid that "Easternization" will lead UGCCers to Orthodoxy. Remember that 90% of the Ukr. Orthodox Church in Canada derives from former Greek Catholics.

The more Latinizations, the better the members of these Orders slept at night . . .

Alex

It's not a matter of Maronites being excuse me, "very latinized." Their liturgical traditions are quite pure and in many cases were similar to the Latin Rite practices from the very beginning.

The comparison to Elko is not accurate in this context. Elko was not "fired" -- he was transferred.

Amen.

It seems like many that carp the loudest about "Latinizations" have no idea what the actual eastern practices were/are.

That's a bunch of bunkum. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been celebrated versus populum at St. Peter's Basilica for centuries. To suggest that is an "impious practice" is either a display of ignorance or mean spiritedness.

Is it even that widespread or is it simply something people like to continue to carp about? I don't know of too many people in the Catholic Church pushing to implement Western practices into the East.

I know a GREAT MANY that carp about latinizations even when none exist in their own places of worship. Some seem to take an almost perverse delight in continuing to talk about them.

Elko was "kicked upstairs" after a massive rebellion of his clergy, led by the rector of the seminary (who shall remain nameless). He was given a make-work job at the Oriental Congregation, continually refused permission to return to his eparchy, a bishop without a see. Eventually, he was allowed to return to the United States--as the Latin auxiliary bishop of Cinncinati. He spent the rest of his live indulging in conspiracy theories and writing a roman a clef about the travails of a deeply misunderstood Greek Catholic bishop persecuted for standing up to communists (hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you).

In any case, that might not be fired in the sense of getting a pink slip and a severance check, but it's effectively the same thing.

There's a reason for that--the church is one of few that is occidented (it faces west, so the high altar could be situated over Peter's tomb). So, when the celebrant at St. Peters is versus populum, he is facing east. It is believed that the entire congregation likewise turned around to face east during the reading of the Roman Canon. Perhaps we should restore that custom?