How the ordinary form of the Mass can “enrich” the extraordinary form

Following our scoop on liturgical changes expected in 2018, the post was given a wide publicity, most of which agreed that the possibility exits. Others, in particular Rorate Caeli (see here and here) and Fr Z tried to mock this Blog.

 

We do not recall any outcry to this article that is being reproduced hereunder. This shows that 'preparation' has been already in the pipeline for some months, at least. We all know the way things are done ... first an innocuous article appears and afterwards, provided there are no reactions the reform starts taking place...

 

How the ordinary form of the Mass can “enrich” the extraordinary form

In Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict hoped the celebration of the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Mass would be “mutually enriching.” So what healthier elements of the ordinary form might benefit the extraordinary?

 

January 31, 2017 Peter M.J. Stravinskas Essay 0 Print

 

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (SP), in which he gave broader scope to the earlier permissions of Pope John Paul II regarding the celebration of Holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962. In the Pope’s accompanying letter to the bishops of the Catholic world, he expressed the conviction that the availability of the older rite (now to be called the “extraordinary form”) would be “mutually enriching” for the extraordinary form and for the “ordinary” form of the Mass. It would appear that the Pontiff was looking toward an organic process, whereby a “new and improved” form of the Roman Mass would result. Many priests and liturgists have identified various elements of the extraordinary form (EF) which would be helpful in shoring up the “sacrality” of the ordinary form (OF). When the conversation turns to how the OF could provide a positive influence on the EF, it is not uncommon to hear serious doubts raised that this could be the case. That response puts me in mind of the famous rhetorical (and probably sarcastic) question of Tertullian when pressed to consider the value of philosophy to theology: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

 

Since the promulgation of SP, when I celebrate according to the EF, thoughts about useful adaptations surface. I suspect that many of these thoughts of mine were likewise in the minds of the Fathers of Vatican II, whose very first document was their Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC). That document provided a theological framework for liturgical renewal, born of the liturgical movement spanning almost a century in the lead-up to Vatican II. In addition to the theological basis, the bishops also identified areas where modification and development were needed; it should be noted that SC obtained near-unanimous approval (including that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre). To be sure, much of what emerged in 1970 (and beyond) was not in the least envisioned by the Council Fathers.

 

 

With all that said, how might the EF benefit from some of the healthier aspects of the OF?

 

Adoption of the revised lectionary
 

Many people do not realize that prior to Vatican II, not only did we have only a one-year Sunday cycle of readings, but we did not have any lectionary for weekdays at all! As a result, either the Sunday readings were repeated or those from the “commons” of the saints were employed. Hence, SC clearly calls for an expansion of the lectionary, putting it in the context of providing the People of God with a greater exposure to the Word of God.

 

The proclamation of most of the New Testament and vast segments of the Old Testament in the current lectionary is one of the most positive achievements of the post-conciliar liturgical reform—so much so that most mainline Protestant denominations have adopted our lectionary.

 

Incorporation of additional Mass formularies

 

The Missal of 1970 (and subsequent editions) contains a rich collection of euchological texts, culled from the vast liturgical storehouse of the Church. Many of the orations have pedigrees dating to the fourth century. Pope Benedict in SP actually suggested the possibility of integrating those prayers into the 1962 Missal, highlighting in particular the array of beautiful prefaces that comprise the OF Missal (in contrast to the very limited number in the EF Missal).

 

Expand possibilities for solemnity

 

The EF has clearly defined categories for the celebration of Mass: Low Mass, Missa Cantata, Solemn Mass. The normative form is the Solemn Mass, wherein a full complement of ministers functions, along with incense and chant. The Low Mass (which, in the United States, unfortunately, was the most familiar and common liturgical experience) had none of those components. The Missa Cantata is an attempt to have at least some of the solemnity, even without all the desired ministers.

 

The OF does not have such mutually exclusive categories, thus allowing for as much solemnity to be incorporated as possible. And so, even at a daily Mass with a single priest-celebrant, one can chant any and all the prayers and use incense. Regrettably, that opening is not taken advantage of very often—even on Sundays. However, it would be a good element to add to the liturgical menu of the EF.

 

Elimination of duplicate recitations

 

In sung Masses of the EF, the celebrant is required to recite quietly texts which are chanted by the choir and/or congregation (e.g., Introit, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus). In the celebration of Holy Mass, the priest moves in and out of various modes: at times, he prays as one of the faithful; at other times, he prays in persona Christi Capitis (“in the person of Christ the Head”). When he operates in the former mode, there is no theological reason for him not to pray the text in union with the whole assembly. Those who attend the EF will know the awkwardness of the current rubrical practice, especially when a text calls for a gesture on the part of the priest (e.g., the Sign of the Cross to end the Gloria or the genuflection during the Credo) which is not “in sync” with what is being sung because the schola/congregation have not gotten there yet.

 

Restoration of Offertory Procession and Prayer of the Faithful

 

Both of these rituals were specifically identified by SC as elements to be restored. The emphasis here is on “restored”; unlike some other rites introduced into the post-Vatican II liturgy, these two have a venerable tradition to them. Indeed, the intercessory prayers of the Good Friday liturgy are a witness to the antiquity of the Prayer of the Faithful. Justin Martyr is an even more ancient witness to the offertory procession.

 

Re-order the dismissal rite

 

The EF dismissal rite is anti-climactic, inasmuch as the priest dismisses the congregation and then bestows the blessing, followed by the Last Gospel. The OF has a more logical conclusion, in that the “Ite, missa est” is truly the last word. Perhaps the Last Gospel could be retained as an optional text, given its historical value.

 

Move the “fractio”

 

In the OF, the “breaking of the bread” occurs during the Agnus Dei, which is the quintessential hymn to the “Lamb who was slain.” The action and the text for this rite in the EF do not correspond to each other as well.

 

Make clear that the homily is a true part of the Sacred Liturgy

 

Removing the maniple and donning the biretta during the homily (along with the opening and closing Sign of the Cross) declare that the homily does not form part of the Mass; indeed, that is an “interrupter.” On the contrary, the homily is an essential part of the Sacred Liturgy. Furthermore, if it is not such, then any baptized Christian should be able to deliver it!

 

Maintain the integrity of the Sanctus

 

When polyphonic Masses are sung, it is not unusual for the Benedictus to be separated from the rest of the Sanctus, being sung after the Consecration. This is an obvious accommodation to the problem of a musical offering that so overshadows the liturgy itself that it cannot be performed without creating an undue delay in the celebration. If a musical composition would have that effect, it certainly comes under the condemnation of Pope Pius X’s Tra le Sollecitudini. Beyond that, if it is being used as a “filler” for the silence after the Consecration, it flies in the face of the whole rationale for an inaudible Canon, evoking a deeper sense of mystery.

 

Adopt the rubrics of the OF for the Communion Rite

 

If the Pater Noster is the prayer of the family of the Church to her heavenly Father, why should not the entire congregation pray it together? Of course, Pope Benedict’s norms in SP already allow for that, however, I have rarely seen the option taken. It would also make sense to have the other prayers of the Communion Rite recited audibly or chanted aloud (as in the OF), with the priest’s private preparation prayers done sotto voce (again, as in the OF).

 

Face the people when addressing the people; face God when addressing God.

 

We have used this formula to justify celebrating Mass ad orientem in the OF, that is, to face liturgical east from the Liturgy of the Eucharist forward. The converse is also true: when proclaiming the Scripture readings, face those to whom those texts are addressed. Whatever the historical origins of facing east for the Epistle and facing north for the Gospel at Solemn Mass, they are not truly communicative of the significance of the rite being celebrated.

 

Unite the calendars of the OF and EF

 

For the EF to be unable to commemorate the saints canonized since 1962 is an impoverishment—a point also raised by Pope Benedict in SP. Certain calendar changes were good (e.g., making the Solemnity of Christ the King the last Sunday of the liturgical year), while others were destructive of long-standing traditions (e.g., Epiphany, Ascension). Regardless of what one thinks of either calendar (and no calendar will ever be perfect), operating with a dual-calendar system bespeaks division, the very antithesis of what good liturgy should be.

 

Modify the rubrics

 

SC calls for the modification of signs and symbols that are duplicative or arcane. One thinks immediately of the multiple Signs of the Cross during the Canon. Just as the OF admits of a certain laxity, the EF can lean toward an unhealthy rigidity or rubricism. In medio stat virtus! (“Virtue stands in the middle”).

 

Rename the two principal parts of the Mass

 

To continue to call the first part of the Mass the “Mass of the Catechumens” is a form of the antiquarianism pilloried by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei. We have not been dismissing catechumens (or penitents) for centuries (except in silly parishes where baptized Christians preparing for reception into full communion are “dismissed”). The post-conciliar nomenclature is quite accurate: Liturgy of the Word/Liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

These are my recommendations for “mutual enrichment” as gifts of the ordinary form to the extraordinary form. I hope this helps answer the contemporary liturgical version of Tertullian’s question.

The rupture has occurred - Francis vs Benedict XVI (and St. John Paul II)

 

Just a few weeks after Pope Francis announced that the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council was “irreversible", he made a widespread change to the ways, and words, in which Roman Catholics worship by amending Vatican law to give national bishop conferences greater authority in translating liturgical language.

 

By his action, Francis goes much further than the reforms of the Second Vatican Council had ever envisaged and erased some of the actions of his predecessors, Benedict XVI and John Paul II. With the motu proprio Magnum Principium, Pope Francis has altered a key 2001 instruction by Saint John Paul II (Liturgiam Authenticam), instructing that translations from Latin needed to be “in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content.” 

 

That same year, the Vatican established Vox Clara, a committee to scrutinize English-language translations of the texts and prayers included in the Roman Missal. The committee advocated a close fidelity to the Latin. All this goes against the “reform of the reform” movement, which ultimately had advocates at the top of  the Catholic Church during John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

          

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The amendment is a significant development in a liturgical schism that has split Catholics across the world and was evident at the highest echelons of the church, especially in recent times. In our opinion, this is an attempt to undermine Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum, practically when we are supposed to celebrate its tenth anniversary.

 

Pope Francis, in fact, has recalled that the Second Vatican Council entrusted bishops with the “weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy.” He added that “in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.”

He also acknowledged the bitter feelings that the fights over liturgical language have produced, writing, “It is no surprise that difficulties have arisen” between local churches and the Vatican. He then called for “reciprocal trust” between the local churches and the Vatican department with liturgical oversight, known as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

 

Unfortunately, under this pontificate, we have seen the undermining of Cardinal Sarah. Last year, Cardinal Sarah called for priests to celebrate Mass ad orientem, but Francis promptly issued an unusual public rebuke. And in April of this year, Cardinal Sarah sent a letter honouring Benedict XVI’s support of the Latin Mass, asserting that “modern liturgy” had caused devastation and schism. Benedict XVI wrote that “the liturgy is in good hands,” in an afterward to a book the cardinal wrote this year.

 

Alas, Francis argued that “vernacular languages themselves, often only in a progressive manner, would be able to become liturgical languages, standing out in a not dissimilar way to liturgical Latin for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith.”

A sustained attack in Malta on those in favour of the Tridentine Mass - 1

Fr Joe Borg regularly writes against traditional Catholics.

The below letter, dated 17 July 2016, published in the Sunday Times of Malta, is the latest in a sustained attack on those Catholics faithful who like the Tridentine Rite. Seems that this priest (who is a member of the Facebook Group of Pro Tridentina Malta) has never heard of what the contemporary Popes said about the Tridentine Mass. And by contemporary we mean Popes who were very much involved in the Second Vatican Council and who implemented the reforms ensuing from it.

To facilitate matters, he might want to refer to the following documents, among others:

1. Veterum Sapientia - On the Promotion of the Study of Latin, issued by Pope Saint John XXIII in 1962;
2. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium,  promulgated by Blessed Pope Paul VI in 1963;
3. Protocol N. 1897/71 issued by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini in 1971; 
4. Quattuor Abhinc Annos, issued by the Office of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in 1984;
5. Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, promulgated by Pope Saint John Paul II in 1988;  
6. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI and the accompanying letter addressed to all bishops;
7. Motu Proprio Latina Lingua, establishing the Pontifical Academy for Latin, promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.

The text of the letter by Fr Joe Borg follows (emphasis ours):

Thank you; but no thank you

Those of you who during the past 15 days devoted your time to watching football, or lazing by the sea or cursing the English for Brexit, would have probably missed the stirring of the ecclesiastical pot as a result of the address given by Cardinal Robert Sarah during the opening of the Sacra Liturgia conference in London on July 5.

Sarah exhorted priests to start celebrating Mass facing the east while giving their backs to the congregation. Sarah is not an average Joe. As head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, his comments carry weight. More so since a couple of weeks earlier he took the same position during an interview with the French maga­zine Famille Chrétienne.

Social networks provided the battleground between those who were exultant or in shock at the proposal made by such an authoritative darling of the conservative wing of the Church. Our local brand of Tridentine conservatives, fuelled by several priests who were ordained during the past 15 years or so, were thrilled to no end.

Like conservatives overseas they form a motley bunch more than a monolithic block. Undoubtedly there are some mode­rate conservatives who have a right to their views and with whom one can dialogue. Others share the views of the extreme right, which consider the post-Vatican II Mass as ‘a protestant rite’. Sarah fell foul even with these ultra-traditionalists, so much so that the website askaCatholic describes Sarah as “a weak and incompetent neo-con hero”.

The practice of orienting both the liturgy – and Church buildings – toward the east is a very old tradition in the Catholic Church. It is still the norm for Orthodox Christianity and Eastern Catholic churches. John of Damascus wrote about it as far back as the seventh century. It is based on Matthew 24,27: “The coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning striking in the east. And flashing far into the west.” This practice also means that the priest celebrates Mass with his back to the people.

Sarah believes that if this practice becomes mainstream (instead of the exception it now is) the Church will be putting God back at the centre of the Church’s liturgical life. He quoted the “lament of God” proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah: “The people have turned their backs on me.” “Let us turn again towards the Lord!” he said.

I have no doubt that Cardinal Sarah has taken this position because he sincerely believes that it is for the good of the Church. However, he is intelligent enough to know that his use of this scriptural quote is, at best, very unfortunate, as it has nothing to do with the direction of one’s gaze or the position of one’s back while celebrating Mass.

Sarah exhorted priests to start celebrating Mass facing the East while giving their backs to the congregation.

Looking towards the east (as he suggests) or the west or in any other direction will not in itself help people experience the beauty of the love that is celebrated during Mass, which is the community’s sacrificial meal par excellance. The Church’s celebration of the earthly liturgy will not give participants a better foretaste of the heavenly liturgy just by looking towards the east and by having the celebrant give his back to the congregation.

When congregation and celebrant face each other their communication and bonding is definitively much better. This bonding will then help them experience the presence of Christ that is guaranteed whenever people are gathered in his name. The presence of he who is the way to the Father will then help the community understand that “the liturgy is not about us but about God” (to quote Benedict XVI). There is absolutely no need to revert to yesteryear’s symbols to live this perennial reality.

Luckily, the Vatican immediately quash­ed all rumours that Sarah was flying Pope Francis’s kite. Many got this impression as Sarah himself had twice mentioned during his London address that he had the full support of Pope Francis in his quest to “reform the reform”.

Fr Federico Lombardi SJ, the Vatican spokesperson, said that the Pope met Cardinal Sarah two days after the London speech, making it clear that the “ordinary” form of celebrating the Mass is the one promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. He added that the “extraordinary” form, while accepted under the means expressed by Benedict XVI, should not become the norm.

Francis practices what he preaches about the possibility of celebrating Mass ad orientem in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Since his election, he has celebrated this rite at least once a year, for the annual tradition of the Pope baptising the newborns of Vatican employees in the Sistine Chapel.

Lombardi added that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states that the altar should be built in such a way “that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible”.

Lombardi also said that “it is better to avoid using the expression ‘the reform of the reform’ (as Sarah did in his London speech), given that this has sometimes been the source of misunderstanding”.

Those using the expression form a spectrum ranging from those who would reasonably like to tweak certain exaggerations that some unfortunately indulge in, to those eager to throw the clock backwards, thus deforming the reform.

Pope Francis is of a different opinion. Last year he celebrated the 50th anniversary of the first Mass offered in Italian. In his homily he said that:

“Let us thank the Lord for what he has done in His Church in these 50 years of liturgical reform… It was truly a courageous gesture for the Church to draw near to the people of God, so that they are able to understand well what they are doing."

“It is not possible to go backwards,” he said. “Always forward! Those who go backward are mistaken.”

My final comment to the good cardinal and to the local enthusiasts of the deforming the reform movement: thanks, but no thanks.

Clarification from the parish priest of St. Augustine, Valletta

A reader sent us a clarification from Fr Deo Debono OSA, parish priest of Saint Augustine, Valletta regarding the previous article Liturgical abuses in Valletta.

Fr Debono stressed that what was stated is incorrect and that the only time that such a situation occurs is when Mass is celebrated by a 90 year old friar. For obvious reasons, this friar would need assistance. 

It is pertinent to note that in liturgical matters, this parish has implemented a number of measures, including that:

• following a 20-year absence, on the occasion of Christmas, the main altar - as well as the lateral ones - were decorated according to the rubrics;
• once a month, Holy Mass is celebrated ad orientem;
• for festivities the Crucifix was placed in the centre, surrounded by the candlesticks.

Pro Tridentina (Malta) would like to commend Fr Debono for the above. They are definitely steps in the right direction. This Blog in the past commented on how the late Fr Alberto Borg OSA, a friar in the same parish had implemented the Second Vatican Council. This shows that what was posted earlier was because of genuine concerns.

Would Fr Debono be in favour of having Mass in the Extraordinary Form celebrated in his parish? If in the affirmative, he can contact us and we can discuss further.

Some differences between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae

Sometimes I am asked this silly question: "Which is better, the Novus Ordo Missae or the Tridentine Mass?" Silly questions usually deserve silly answers, but in the second article of the series, I will try to explain some (evident) differences between the two Forms of the Roman Rite.

First of all, fundamentally, all valid Masses from a Pontifical Solemn High Mass to a 'Neocatechumenal Way' Mass all have the same value, that is to say Christ offering Himself to the Father on our behalf. Whether, however, the photo above of a so-called Youth Mass (with lay persons having the clown nose) can be deemed as reverent, I think the answer is an obvious NO!

From my limited understanding and experience, the Tridentine Mass more fully represents a sacrificial nature than does the Novus Ordo. The following are the main, basic differences:

a) Ad Orientem posture: This indicates that the prayers of the Mass, while some are said for our benefit, are not to us, but to the Father. The Priest, in the Person of Christ, is praying to the Father, not announcing to us.

b) Prayers at the foot of the altar: These prayers are reminiscent of the prayers the High Priest would say before entering the Holy of Holies. The priest would do this to purify himself from sin in order to make a worthy offering for the people. The priest says the prayers at the foot of the Altar for the same reason. Note that he does this before the Introit, recognising that he is a sinner and that he comes as a servant.

c) Motions: The motions are much more reverent, more genuflecting and the like, and a small motion that was started due to necessity but that can have great meaning attached. The Deacon and subdeacon hold the edge of the Chasuble when the Priest incenses the altar.

d) Offertory: This part of the Mass has changed a lot. Supposedly this had to with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, on the grounds that it was a needless repetition, and that it was confusing when the wafer became the Hostia! This is nothing less than the preparation of the Victim, and if one reads through the Pentateuch (and visualises the sacrifice) and sees a Tridentine Mass the link becomes clear.

e) Silence: This argument is the same as the argument for Ad Orientem posture, this is not about us, it is about God. This silence is real, part of the Rite, and encourages contemplation. Silence in the Novus Ordo is far less and it seems imposed and unnecessary. How much silence is kept by the congregation during the Novus Ordo should also be taken into account.

f) Communion: In the Tridentine Mass, the Christian kneels, and humbly receives the Sacred Host, the Lord of Heaven and Earth. In the Novus Ordo it depends on the whims of the priest: standing, or kneeling, in the hand, in the mouth, distributed by Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, etc.

In Malta, we can increase the unity of the Church by bringing the Novus Ordo more in line with tradition. We could also incorporate better music (i.e. more traditional) and an ad orientem posture (especially in the old churches). This would increase reverence in the Mass and decrease narcissism. It would also help the Novus Ordo priest’s humility, as quite a number of Masses have become more of the 'Father XYZ Show'.

Other ideas could be to limit the role of lay persons as too often serving at Mass has become a status position or a position of pseudo authority in the Church. A far better way to assist at Mass is through interior participation.

Finally the insistence of a more reverent attitude regarding the dress code at Mass (especially during the hot summer months in these islands), talking while in the Church, and more Orthodox teaching would bring more people in line with Church teaching and lessen fear and distrust of the Tridentine Mass.

People, young people especially, really crave authenticity. The answer is to gradually return to organically developed practices that were developed over the past two milienia, that is the Tridentine Mass. We need to allow the richness of the organic rite to influence the Novus Ordo Missae (which was not organically developed, it was written up by a committee) and purge all elements of the Novus Ordo which are less in line with our Catholic Tradition.

More will follow in a later post.

Godwin Xuereb

Bishop of Tulsa Abandons "Mass Facing the People"

Bishop Slattery on Mass Ad Orientem

By John Vennari

The September 2009 issue of Eastern Oklahoma Catholic featured a brief article by Bishop Edward J. Slattery, Ordinary of the Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Bishop explains why he has ceased the practice of Mass facing the people, and now celebrates Mass facing the altar (ad orientem).

Though the article does not specify whether the Bishop will celebrate Old Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo ad orientem, it is said Bishop Slattery is well disposed toward the Tridentine Mass. The fact that a United States Bishop displays a clear understanding of why Mass should be celebrated ad orientem is one of the few rays of hope in the Church in America. His words deserve to be widely known.

Bishop Slattery opens by explaining the Mass as "Christ's sacrifice under the sacramental signs of bread and wine", and goes on to explain that the people share in this offering, which is done through the priest.

"From ancient times, the position of the priest and the people reflected this understanding of the Mass," writes Bishop Slattery, "since the people prayed, standing or kneeling, in the place that visibly corresponded to Our Lord's Body, while the priest at the altar stood at the head as the Head, We formed the whole Christ – Head and members – both sacramentally by Baptism and visibly by our position and posture. Just as importantly, everyone – celebrant and congregation – faced the same direction, since they were united with Christ in offering to the Father Christ's unique, unrepeatable and acceptable sacrifice."

He points out that when we study the most ancient liturgical practices of the Church, "we find that the priest and the people faced in the same direction, toward the east, in the expectation that when Christ returns, He will return `from the East'. At Mass, the Church keeps vigil, waiting for that return. This single position is called ad orientem, which simply means `toward the East'."

He then speaks of the multiple advantages of Mass ad orientem:

The Bishop says, "Having the priest and people celebrate Mass ad orientem was the liturgical norm for nearly 18 centuries. There must have been solid reasons for the Church to have held on to this posture for so long. And there were! First of all, the Catholic liturgy has always maintained a marvelous adherence to the Apostolic Tradition. We see the Mass, indeed the whole liturgical expression of the Church's life, as something which we have received from the Apostles and which we, in turn, are expected to hand on intact. (1 Corinthians 11:23)."

Secondly, the Bishop continues, "the Church held on to this single eastward position because of the sublime way it reveals the nature of the Mass. Even someone unfamiliar with the Mass who reflected upon the celebrant and the faithful being oriented in the same direction would recognize that the priest stands at the head of the people, sharing in one and the same action, which was – he would note with a moment's longer reflection – an act of worship."

He then makes the point: "In the last 40 years, however, this shared orientation was lost; now the priest and the people have become accustomed to facing in opposite directions. The priest faces the people while the people face the priest, even though the Eucharistic Prayer is directed to the Father and not to the people."

Bishop Slattery never refers to Mass facing the people as some sort of recovery of an ancient tradition, but clearly speaks of it as an "innovation" that took place after Vatican II – an innovation with negative consequences.

The introduction of this novelty, he says, was "partly to help the people understand the liturgical action of the Mass by allowing them to see what was going on, and partly as an accommodation to contemporary culture where people who exercise authority are expected to face directly the people they serve, like a teacher sitting behind her desk."

He then sums up in three quick points the negative consequences of this innovation: "First of all, it was a serious rupture with the Church's ancient tradition. Secondly, it can give the appearance that the priest and the people were engaged in a conversation about God, rather than the worship of God. Thirdly, it places an inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant by placing him on a kind of liturgical stage."

The Bishop goes on to note that Pope Benedict, even as Cardinal Ratzinger, urged a recovery of more authentic Catholic worship based on the ancient liturgical practice, "For that reason," says Bishop Slattery, "I have restored the venerable ad orientem position when I celebrate Mass at the Cathedral. This change ought not to be misconstrued as the Bishop `turning his back on the faithful,' as if I am being inconsiderate or hostile. Such an interpretation misses the point that, by facing in the same direction, the posture of the celebrant and the congregation make explicit the fact that we journey together to God."

We may hope the Bishop's words and example help to lead not simply to a "reform of the reform" of the Novus Ordo, but ultimately to greater numbers of priests abandoning the New Rite, and celebrating exclusively the Latin Tridentine Mass. May more priests and prelates come to realize what Cardinal Ottaviani recognized, and what he wrote to Pope Paul VI on September 25, 1969: "The Novus Ordo Missae … represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."

Godwin Xuereb, President, Pro Tridentina (Malta)'s comment: A very interesting article, although I am not totally in favour of what the author stated in the last paragraph. It is interesting to note that in Malta too, some priests are celebrating Mass ad orientem.