TURNING THE TABLES: A COMMENTARY ON AN EDITORIAL IN 'NOTITIAE,' MAY 1993
by Rev. John T. Zuhlsdorf
In his book, <The Reform of the Roman Liturgy>, recently published in
both French and English translations, Monsignor Klaus Gamber said:
During the past twenty years, we have experienced a change in the
accepted meaning of the Sacrifice. Personally, I believe that the
introduction of the "altar of the people," with the celebrant of the
Mass facing the people, is of much greater significance and poses
greater problems for the future than the introduction of the new
missal.
In the May 1993 issue of Notitiae, the publication of the Vatican's
Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments,
there is an editorial concerning the orientation of altars and
celebrations of the Mass facing the people (See <Sacred Music>, Vol.
120, No. 4, p. 14-17). In light of the increasing discussion over
these very matters, it is opportune to comment on this editorial.
It must be noted that Notitiae is the official publication of the
congregation. It relates various speeches of the Holy Father, minutes
of plenary sessions of the congregations, various continuing
scholarly studies accepted in manuscript or undertaken by the
congregation concerning the liturgy; provides the ordinary prayers
for newly beatified or canonized saints to be used in the Mass or the
Liturgy of the Hours; publishes decrees of the same congregation;
from time to time responds formally and publicly to questions raised
about the liturgy with official clarifications or interpretations;
and also provides editorials or opinions. While some of the things in
Notitiae have an official character, such as a decree or
clarification, an editorial has no authority other than that derived
from the strength of its arguments and ability to persuade. People
often mistake opinion for authority, especially in the liturgy. This
leads to terrible problems for the use of music, observance of
rubrics, construction/destruction of churches, and the like. In this
number of Notitiae, one notes in the index the title of the editorial
in question, but there is no indication that it is in fact an
editorial until one glances at the top of the next page. While this
may have been an oversight, it could lead to confusion and is best
clarified.
After several introductory paragraphs (14), which establish the
obvious point that all liturgy is oriented toward God, the editorial
begins to address its topic. A clear attempt is made to argue that,
at least in part, the arrangement of the altar, people and celebrant
is historically and culturally conditioned. The motive here seems to
be this: to prepare the reader later in the editorial to accept as
preferable the theological/cultural criteria provided for a
positioning of the altar in contrast to any historical/cultural
criteria that would agrue for a different arrangement. In other
words, if it can be shown that altars <ad orientem> are the result of
historical or cultural conditions, rather than an organic outgrowth
of Christian spirituality and theology, then the arrangement of the
altar <versus populum> can be claimed as superior once a theological
basis for it can be established.
However, the editorial's argument reveals the first of a series of
weaknesses. We read that "symbolism" as expressed in architecture is
only proved with difficulty to be "an integral and basic part of
Christian faith." While this is the first salvo designed to undermine
support for an <ad orientem> altar, it likewise weakens support for a
<versus populum> altar if convincing theological and spiritual
arguments cannot be provided. Moreover, this is founded on a premise
that is hard to admit, namely, that the historical or cultural
influences on the development of the altar are to be set in
<contrast> with the theological. Basically, the editorial has begun
its bid to finesse the reader into being persuaded by what will, at
its end, be admitted to be a matter of symbolic emphasis and even
taste. It is furthermore ironic that later in the editorial numerous
appeals will be made to "symbolism" to support a <versus populum>
altar.
There follows a secondary section that continues to associate the <ad
orientem> altar with historical and cultural conditions, even pagan
influences. The editorial makes a particularly strange use of one of
the fathers of the Church, St. Leo the Great. However, at the end of
the paragraph, we find probably the real <causa movens> behind
Notitiae's apologia:
In fact, the faithful entering the basilica for the Eucharist in
order to be intent on the altar, had to turn their backs to the sun.
In order to pray while "turned toward the east, as it was said, they
would have had to turn their backs to the altar, which doesn't seem
probable.
This is an unmistakable reference to the thesis of Klaus Gamber in
his recently and posthumously re-published works that have all but
dismantled the archeological arguments favoring the <versus populum>
altars that have been the rage of liturgists and the bane of
architectural integrity for decades. In <Zum Hern hin!>[1] Gamber
argues very effectively that, regardless of the physical orientation
of the building, the priest and people faced the same direction at
Mass, symbolically facing the east. The fact that in Roman basilicas
the altars were set between the priest celebrating and the people is
not sufficient evidence for an ancient practice of <versus populum>
celebrations in the modern sense. Put briefly, it is Gamber's thesis,
founded on historical evidence and well-documented, that at a certain
point in the Basilica of St. Peter, the people literally turned
around and faced the east with the result that the priest and people
face the same direction, this time with the priest behind the
assembly. As time went on and the practice of turning around faded,
there were still no <versus populum> Masses (in the modern sense) in
the Roman basilicas because of the presence of barriers between the
congregations and the altar, screens, curtains, etc.[2]
Though revolutionary, Gamber's well-researched argument is far more
convincing than what has been provided in past decades. It is dear
that he has frightened not a few people, even in the congregation for
divine worship. If Gamber is right, the destruction of countless
altars, the violation of sanctuaries, the pain and "disorientation"
as it were of the Catholic faithful, will have proved to be a sham
founded on a false argument. Some of the people who pushed the
reforms after Vatican II are still around, of course, and their
spiritual offspring can be found still in the congregation that
provided the editorial in Notitiae. But the full impact of the
editorial remains to be seen. Nonetheless, it is patent that this
editorial is a response to Gamber and his growing posthumous
influence.
After having attempted to associate the <ad orientem> altar with a
culturally conditioned practice that eventually faded away, the next
paragraph goes on to state that, since the practice deriving from
that outdated and even pagan symbolism diminished, the celebration of
Mass <ad orientem> cannot be considered an "inviolable element" or a
"traditional fundamental principle of the liturgy." Following this,
the editorial uses Pius XII to show that a desire to perpetuate an
<ad orientem> altar is merely archeologizing, and therefore unsound,
even bad. This is a further attack on the thesis of Gamber. While
appealing to Pius XII seems to be a rather blatant citation of a pope
much revered by traditional Catholics, there is a yet more curious
point to this. Gamber himself also cites the 1947 encyclical,
<Mediator Dei>, which says that "one who wants to change the altar
into the old form of the <mensa> is going down the wrong road."[3]
Changing tacks, the editorial goes on to give us this:
In effect, the validity of the liturgical reform is not based only
and exclusively on the return to original forms. There can also be
completely new elements in it, and in fact there are some, that have
been perfectly integrated.
To this assertion several responses must be made. First, we can see
how nervous the defenders of the <versus populum> Mass (clearly the
position taken by the editorial writer!) have become if they are now
beginning to back-peddle on the very argument by which they justified
their altar "revolution" in the first place. "Go back to the original
forms!" they once cried, thereby casting aspersions on anything that
organically and legitimately developed during more than a dozen
intervening centuries. Now they say that a return to the original
forms is not the point? Gamber has shown that they are probably wrong
in the first place about what they thought original forms were. No
wonder they say that the original forms are not the point...now. It
remains for them to make that assertion on a scholarly level,
however. Until then, <gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.>
Second, it seems that they (in the congregation) are afraid that
Gamber was right and that they have no evidence to the contrary. Why
else would they now attack the "previous forms" argument when before
they lionized it? The whole editorial shows that the proponents of
the <versus populum> altar are now being forced to go fishing for a
theology to support their projects. But isn't that what they say
happened in the intervening centuries of organic liturgical
development? Liturgical reformers were ever ready to say that all
those developments in the Mass were merely historical encrustations
that were later justified with subsequent theological explanations.
To this writer's mind, the Notitiae editorial is doing precisely the
same thing, but with a difference. Whereas the developments in the
liturgy unconsciously acquired theological explanations over the
years, the congregation seems to be consciously stitching one
together, <ex nihilo>.
Third, this editorial has surely and openly admitted that completely
new elements were added to the reform of the liturgy and has
implicitly placed the <versus populum> altar among them. Is this
anything other than a tacit admission that, while they don't like
Gamber's argument, they have to accept it? Whether these new elements
in the liturgy have been "perfectly integrated" or not must be
balanced against the concrete fruits that they have produced for the
two or more generations of Catholics since they were introduced.
It is important to note the phrase, "The option for celebrations
<versus populum> is coherent with the foundational theological idea
discovered and proven by the liturgical movement..." The Italian
implies the notion of "option" in the sense of "choose." One could
say "the choice in favor of celebrations" or even "the choice to
celebrate <versus populum>." The editorial is again tackling Gamber,
who comments on these points.[4] At least Gamber went back somewhat
farther than the last few decades (a century at best) of the
liturgical movement. Why the author of the editorial would want to
favor the recent liturgical movement, a clear example of the
intertwining of cultural influence on the form of liturgy, over the
practice of the ancient Church is puzzling at best, especially since
he has gone to such lengths to undermine the historical and cultural
criterion arguing for the altar's orientation. Once again the specter
of prejudice seems to be raising its head. Why do certain lines of
argumentation concerning liturgical questions inevitably prefer the
modern over the ancient, oppose the old to the new, create conflict
between different periods of Christian expression? It is as if the
authentic liturgy began only recently after centuries of benighted
wandering and aberrations.
The last few paragraphs of the editorial have the flavor of a very
self-conscious <apologia>. This section begins with the dramatic
statement that "the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council
did not invent the arrangement of the altar turned toward the
people." This is odd in light of the next paragraph's discussion of
the "liturgical movement." It also seems to be protesting innocence
when there had been no accusation.
Moreover, while this paragraph seems in one moment to defend the
post-conciliar entity, <Consilium> and its Cardinal Lercaro, the
interpolation of their names in this context has the side effect of
drawing our attention to just exactly what they did after the
council. The editorial justly uses the argument <abusus non tollit
usum>. Still, is this any better than the finger-pointing cry of "its
their fault?"
Besides this, what can one make of the statement, "Changing the
orientation of the altar and utilizing the vernacular turned out to
be much easier ways for entering into the theological and spiritual
meaning of the liturgy..." This is greatly to be disputed. One could
conversely charge that changing the altar and eliminating Latin
created confusion and ignorance. While running the risk of extremism,
one could argue effectively both ways.
All of this begs the question, however, of why it is necessarily
preferable to make everything "easier." Why reduce the sacred and the
mysterious always and everywhere to the common denominator? At the
beginning of the editorial it was correctly stated that "celebrating
the Eucharist is never to put into action something earthly, but
rather something heavenly." How does a <versus populum> altar and the
vernacular facilitate that fundamental concept better than the
previous forms? If once it was not "easy" to "enter into" the
liturgy's meaning at all its levels, it can hardly be stated that
centuries of saints and martyrs, billions of unknown lay people,
clergy, and religious throughout the world were unable to imbibe of
the spirit of the liturgy which reflects the eschatological presence
of the Lord of glory simply because Latin was used or the altar was
<ad orientem>! The editorial's statement is specious. In fact, the
older form of liturgy proved itself by its fruits, and the newer form
has yet to prove anything by the fact that we haven't as yet seen it
authentically implemented.
It has been said that the Church has bequeathed two things to
humanity as its rightful heritage: art and saints. The centuries long
use of the older form of liturgy certainly inculturated the Christian
faith and gave thousands of generations a foretaste of our heavenly
promise. This cannot be disputed. We have yet to see what the
new-easier-form of the liturgy will give us. Despite the editorial's
disclaimer of abuses, if we have seen "something" since the
introduction of the reforms, including the "new elements" cited, we
have hardly seen a flowering of Catholic art and saints. Time will
tell. We must give an authentic reform the chance to bear its own
fruits.
The argument that a <versus populum> altar is verified because monks
pray facing each other is ridiculous. Going on, the editorial reveals
a clear theological bias even though a nod is given in the direction
of the sacrificial nature of the Mass (which seems adequately
expressed by an <ad orientem> altar) the notion of the supper and the
meal is put in high evidence (favoring the <versus populum>). More
absurd, and hardly to be understood, is the contention that the
<versus populum> altar is "one of the strongest arguments sustaining
the uninterrupted tradition of the exclusive ordination of men." One
is almost embarrassed by this last point. After several blatant
appeals to things revered by traditionally minded Catholics, fathers
of the Church, Pius XII, etc., now the need is felt to tack on a
reference to male priesthood as something favoring a <versus populum>
altar.
Moving from "theory" to "pastoral application," the final paragraph
introduces what the congregation proposes as "guiding points." First,
the use of the title "congregation" does not change the fact that
Gamber's argument has not been systematically addressed.
Nevertheless, as faithful Roman Catholics, it is still praiseworthy
to consider and draw upon that which Roman congregations publish,
even if only at the level of an editorial. It is useful then to look
at these five "guiding points" in order, and then consider their
implications for our pastoral use. These "guiding points," reduced to
their core and commented on here are as follows:
1. Priests need to acquire a better liturgical technique, based on a
sound faith and theology, since celebrating facing the people is
harder to do.
This is hardly to be disputed. Would that the congregation had
insisted on this point over the last thirty years since <Sacrosanctum
Concilium>. If, on the other hand, it is true that one does not
easily acquire a liturgical "presidential" style for Masses <coram
populo>, the same is to be said for those <ad orientem>. It is not to
be assumed that celebrating Mass with one's back to the people is
automatically easier. Still, this remains a very good point, even if
it is partly a response to what Gamber says about the liturgical
style prone to the turned-around altar.[5] In addition, one can use
this point to draw many implications for other related issues of
training for clergy.
2. The altar itself is not a mere table, and its placement makes a
difference in how the sanctuary is used.
Certainly this is directed at the abuse or disregard of the altar's
special character. The very fact that a guiding point is given on
this, shows how vulnerable to abuse the <versus populum> altar is.
Also, if the position of the altar <versus populum> requires a
rigorous and careful use of sanctuary space, this is no less the case
when the altar is fixed to the wall and the sanctuary is more open.
The other part of this problem is that the comment arrives at a time
when, more often than not, people are asking "what's a sanctuary?,"
so many have been eliminated. Also, the carefully worked out rubrics
of previous missals are certainly more in line with this "guiding
point" than the usual chaos seen in most sanctuaries today. This is
partly because of the ambiguity of the rubrics remaining in the new
books. If the congregation wants a better liturgical presider and a
better use of the altar and sanctuary, then it could start by giving
us a clear and detailed ceremonial, even though one shudders at the
idea of what we might get.
3. The principle of the unicity of the altar is theologically more
important than the practice of celebrating facing the people.
Although this should be an obvious point, in its own way it is the
single most important point of the whole editorial. Here the entire
argumentation of the editorial falls away only to reveal what
everybody already knows, and has known all along. Despite all the
talk of historical conditions and previous forms, aside from the
theological dance done to persuade the reader that a turned-around
altar is to be preferred, in the final analysis the <versus populum>
celebration, and therefore all of the editorial's argumentation, is
not of absolute value. There are legitimate and obvious reasons why
one should have an <ad orientem> altar. This is a most singular
statement to find in Notitiae after the years and years of polemics
throughout the world over this issue!
Reviewed briefly, the reason for this "point" is as follows. If the
architectural layout or the artistic value of the versus <ad
orientem> altar doesn't allow space for a turned-around altar, keep
the old one. The main idea is to defend the focus of attention on one
altar. What implications does this have for the table altars that
have been set up in churches both large and small where the clear
architectural intention was to create lines of sight such that the
worshippers' eyes were directed to the high altar and the tabernacle?
What conclusions are to be drawn from this "point" for cathedrals and
basilicas, richly and beautifully decorated, that have placed a table
altar in front of an artistic treasure that dominated the whole
sanctuary? What does this mean for overly crowded sanctuaries that
have <coram populo> altars squeezed in so that the space is cramped
and the main altar, if still extant, turns into the shelf for plants?
When in a church one sees nothing else but the high altar,
beautifully decorated and by its location at the center of every
attention, what implications can be drawn for the little table set up
so that the priest can face the people? More sadly, what does this
mean for all the altars, artistic treasures, architectural "wholes"
that have been destroyed for the sake of <versus populum>?
In addition to momentous practical implications, this "point" has a
legitimate and convincing theological aspect too: the one people of
God should focus on one altar in their church. This does not mean
destroy side altars, which also have significance. The artistic
values and architectural space and integrity of altars and churches
must be respected. Thus, common sense, theology and good taste
converge at last.
4. Do not confuse topography with theology.
In a way, this "guiding point" extends point No. 3, above. Here we
read that, theologically, every Mass is facing God. This is an
attempt to say that an altar <coram populo> and one <ad orientem>
accomplish virtually the same thing, provided, of course, that the
celebrant knows what he is doing (point No. 1), the space is used
well (point No. 2) and the practical and artistic aspects have been
properly handled so that the people are focused on one altar (point
No. 3). While this point tries to participate in the clear advantages
of an <ad orientem> altar for all situations, it is a good principle
and hardly to be disputed, even though the congregation's editorial
keeps saying that <versus populum> is better.
5. "Provisional arrangements" cannot be justified any longer.
Thirty years after <Sacrosanctum Concilium> it is time to settle
down. There are at least two ways to read this "guiding point," one
superficial and one more reflective. First reading: movable tables
should be quickly fixed to the floor as permanent altars, lest
something happen and the table altar <versus populum> goes out of
style. In this way it will be harder to get rid of and just might
weather the storm. Second, a comprehensive reading that takes into
consideration some other principles provided by the editorial itself
is possible. Take stock of how the liturgy is being celebrated:
improve your celebrant's style, get your ceremonies worked out, study
your church's design and the artistic value of the main altar and/or
the table altar. If, when there are two altars present, the <versus
populum> altar is clearly overshadowed and doesn't work harmoniously
with the space, get rid of it; use the high altar, and celebrate
together facing God, priest's back to the people. This would be the
case with most older churches where the sanctuaries have not been
"reformed." If on the other hand the <versus populum> altar is
clearly harmonious with the space and there is no altar <ad
orientem>, then keep things the way they are. This would be the case
with most newer churches, designed to have a <coram populo> altar.
Here priest and people could celebrate facing God, while facing each
other. It is obvious that in churches where there is only one altar
<ad orientem> and it works well, and that a <versus populum> altar
would disturb the space's organic whole, it should be shunned. Alas,
too late for many...
This leaves unclarified the case of the older church in which the
sanctuary has been reformed or the internal floor plan has been
rearranged. In this case the high <ad orientem> altar may have been
removed and a <versus populum> altar been introduced, but the result
is a confusion of architectural lines and artistic styles that try to
force the building to do something it was not designed to do.
Using the editorial's guidelines, the congregation seems to be saying
that the church should be put back the way it was so that the space's
artistic and architectural harmony can favor the unicity of the altar
and the people's focus on it for the purpose of celebrating facing
God. On the other hand, as Cardinal Ratzinger says, after all the
upheaval endured in the last years and throughout all the various
"renovations" that have been done, maybe it is prudent to give things
a rest before putting them back the way they were. Many people
already have the idea that the Church is no longer stable because of
the last thirty years. Let us not contribute to that by rushing into
"denovation" projects too quickly.
After looking at the strengths and weaknesses of this editorial in
Notitiae, and reviewing with comments the "guiding points" it
provides, a final word is in order.
The congregation, startled into action by the thesis of Klaus Gamber
to which it reacts in this editorial, has clearly been forced into a
massive retreat. If the congregation is seen as perpetuating the
innovations of the <Consilium>, then the article in Notitiae is
doubly astonishing, like a trusted rifle backfiring, exploding. If
the Holy See's Notitiae can be argued to be the balanced and genuine
"central line," neither too conservative, nor too radical, then the
liturgists of the world will still have a great deal of thinking to
do. In fact, it probably lies somewhere in between. Nevertheless, the
"experts" of the congregation have gone back on the principle of
returning to original forms, because it is clear now that the forms
don't bear out what has been done in their name. While trying to
state that historical conditioning is not a central criterion for the
arrangement of an altar, they have referred to the liturgical
movement of the past few decades. This is a great contradiction.
Abandoning historical criteria, they set out to create a theology in
order to justify a celebration facing the people, the same organic
process which was the bugbear of reformers concerning the older form
of liturgy. Having lost every other support, they are reduced to
defence of the "unicity" of the altar, in whatever form, in order to
salvage the <versus populum>. "Point," set, and match.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the "guiding points," though they
have no authority themselves, can provide food for thought to all
those who for so long have thought themselves to be secure in their
exclusive use of a <versus populum> liturgy. It seems to be a gentle
way of breaking the news and giving some guidance.
This editorial of Notitiae was in a way an immense concession to
those who for decades have been saying that the Church's artistic
treasures must be respected and used wisely. Although it deals mainly
with the position of the altar and the celebrant, the editorial
opened itself up to wider considerations when it brought up the
vernacular and various "new elements" in the liturgy. Therefore, we
can conclude that if the "guiding points" given can be applied to
altars, we can also apply them to liturgical language as well. If the
liturgy reflects heaven and not earth, mystery and not commonplace,
then the position of the altar, the language used, and the music and
other arts employed must foster this. If they do not, they should be
changed. This is a solid argument for the use of Latin and the
treasury of sacred music at our disposal, so intimately joined to
Latin and the liturgical space itself.
The great works of sacred music that we have inherited over the
centuries were conceived and born into a certain kind of liturgical
space, namely, one that was open, acoustically favorable, and
adequate for a solemn liturgical function proportioned to the lofty
values and the greatness of the music's own artistic expression.
Therefore, the discussion of the altar and Latin are themselves
central to the music, for they impact on the space and the language
in which the music is performed.
Even the notion given in "guiding point" No. 2 is vital and
applicable to a discussion of Latin and music. If a good liturgical
style is important to celebrations, and if it must be worked on,
practiced, studied, acquired by training, it is even more important
to have the Church direct the training of priests particularly in
Latin, music, and the other arts. Without Latin, how can a Latin rite
priest function authentically? How can he know what music is suitable
for the liturgy? Similarly, if the Church does not assure that there
are justly paid church musicians with the proper training in their
special field, as well as some work in Latin, architecture, theology
and liturgy, how can any of our "liturgical spaces" realize what the
congregation says in the fourth paragraph of the editorial:
celebrating the Eucharist is never to put into action something
earthly, but rather something heavenly, because (the Church) has the
awareness that the principle celebrant of the same action is the Lord
of Glory.
The Second Vatican Council could provide the background for a new
renaissance in the third millennium of the Church's pilgrimage toward
the Lord of Glory in the heavenly Jerusalem to come. Editorials such
as the one in Notitiae, though conditioned as they are by many
factors, reveal Rome's unchanging desire to guide us, get us to admit
mistakes and use common sense, roll up our sleeves and then...just do
what the council asked.
Reverend John T. Zuhlsdorf
ENDNOTES
1. This is published in English as <Facing the Lord: On the Building
of Churches and Facing East in Prayer> in a single volume together
with another work (which gives the title to the volume) <The Reform
of the Roman Liturgy: its problems and background>, Una Voce Press,
1993.
2. op. cit., pp. 159-161.
3. ibid., pp. 142-3.
4. ibid., pp. 142 sq.
5. ibid., pp. 171 sq.
This article appeared in the Spring, 1994 issue of "Sacred Music."
Published by the Church Music Association of America, 548 Lafond
Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55103.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
