We continue Luisella Scrosati’s series on the orientation of Christian worship with the third part, “L’altare verso il popolo, una novità della nostra epoca,” originally published in Italian on November 23, on the website of La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, and reproduced here by permission of the editors. (Read Part 1; Part 2)
If there is one thing that emerges very clearly from the study of churches and Christian texts from the earliest centuries of the Church (see here), it is the fact that places of worship were built, with a few exceptions, on an east-west axis, with the apse mainly facing east. The altar was positioned so that the bishop and priests could offer sacrifice facing east: when the apse was on the eastern side, the ministers also faced the apse; when, less frequently, the apse faced west, they celebrated facing the front of the church, which was located on the eastern side.
What does not emerge at all from these historical reconstructions is that there ever existed a celebration “towards the people” and, consequently, an altar “towards the people.” In other words, the people were never considered the point of orientation for the public prayer of the Church, nor for the prayer of the faithful. That the Church as a hierarchically ordered people was the subject of this prayer was beyond question; but, precisely for this reason, its point of orientation was not in itself, but in God.
One could object – and in fact one does object – that “God is everywhere”, and therefore it would make no sense to physically orient prayer. But this was not at all the belief of the Christians of the early centuries, not because they did not believe in divine omnipresence, but because they were much more aware and attentive than we are in recognizing cosmic symbolism, a consequence of the creative act of eternal Wisdom, and its importance for the homo religiosus.
The sign of the sun did not leave any ancient people indifferent, not even Christians, who by then knew the full meaning of this cosmic sign, in its expression of the power of the risen Christ as well as the orientation of all human history towards the Parousia. The meaning of the orientation of prayer, and therefore of sacred buildings and altars, is certainly not understood starting from divine omnipresence, but rather from our humanity, which is located in a symbolic universe, coming from God, eternal Wisdom.
Our time finds it tremendously difficult to comprehend this truth, because our relationship with the universe has been drastically reduced to its use and consumption or, at best, to its “understanding” in purely physical-mathematical terms. The reality, however, is that worship and the cosmos meet and illuminate each other precisely in their intimate reference to the transcendence from which they derive and to which they tend. And so geographical east and the orientation of prayer come together harmoniously.
Therefore, until very recently, there has never been an altar oriented towards the people, nor would such an orientation have been understood. Even when the sacred minister was actually facing the nave, he did so because the Church faced east rather than west. The reason is elementary even for religious people and for Christians in particular: prayer is addressed to God, the sacrifice offered by the priest rises before the Most High, the altar is a sign of the altar of Heaven that stands before the divine Majesty: only God is the point of orientation of the Church’s prayer.
Therefore, the physical point of this orientation must be capable of expressing this transcendent reality, according to a universal cosmic language. And the “people” certainly do not have this characteristic. The misunderstanding of this point is now so deeply rooted that even the traditional orientation towards God/east is understood only negatively, as “turning one’s back” on the people; an interpretation that further confirms how the people have now become, for the first time in history, not only of the Church but also of religions, the focal point of worship.
So where does this idea of an altar facing the people come from?
The answer to this question (which will continue in the next article of the series) must first clear the field of a persistent cliché, namely that this new orientation was desired by the Second Vatican Council. In reality, it happened did many other liturgical changes: the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), does not say a single word on this subject, neither regarding the orientation nor regarding the construction of new altars.
It was the Instruction issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites and the Consilium for the application of the liturgical Constitution, Inter Oecumenici (September 26, 1964), that took the liberty of introducing for the first time the expression versus populum in reference to the liturgical celebration: “It is good that the main altar be detached from the wall so that it can be easily turned around and celebrated facing the people.”
It is not clear which point of SC is being applied here, since, as we said, the liturgical Constitution does not mention it at all; in any case, it can be noted that the Instruction still speaks of a possibility, not an obligation. The text was incorporated into the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and, in its edition still under study in 2000, includes the apparently restrictive addition, “which is desirable wherever possible.”
The non-obligatory nature of altars detached from the wall and of celebration facing the people had already been highlighted by the then-president of the Consilium for the application of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, who on January 25, 1966, explained to all the presidents of the national episcopal conferences that “for a true and participatory liturgy, it is not essential that the altar be turned versus populum: in the Mass, the entire liturgy of the word is celebrated from the seat, the ambo, and the lectern, which are therefore turned toward the assembly; as far as the Eucharistic liturgy is concerned, loudspeaker systems make participation quite possible. Secondly, serious consideration should be given to artistic and architectural issues, as these elements are protected in many countries by strict civil laws.”
Said – and then denied: in all churches, the altar versus populum was in fact imposed, even leading to the abandonment and demolition of ancient altars.
The non-mandatory nature of this change also emerges from the response of September 25, 2000, from the Congregation for Divine Worship, which clarified that the indication in Inter Oecumenici “is not a mandatory form, but a suggestion.” Reflecting on how various factors may discourage making these changes, it concluded that “the position facing the assembly seems more convenient [...] without, however, excluding the other possibility.”
The rubrics of the current Roman Missal require that the priest, at the moment of the Orate, fratres, the Pax Domini, the Ecce Agnus Dei, and the Oremus that introduces the Prayer after Communion, be “facing the people” – a rubric that would make no sense if the entire celebration were necessarily already facing the people.
We can therefore observe a pattern to which we are unfortunately accustomed when it comes to liturgical reforms:
1. Vatican II does not speak of the altar and celebration versus populum;
2. the Instruction, which should simply apply the document on the liturgy, introduces the possibility;
3. Bishops and liturgists impose the obligation, prohibiting the traditional orientation, which for convenience we call ad Deum.
It goes without saying that the refrain today and then is nothing more than that of a presumed better participation of the people, so that those who defend the classical orientation can and must be opposed as “enemies of the people.” This, too, is a déjà vu of every self-respecting revolution. However, it must not lack the support of plausibility offered by science, as we shall see...
What does not emerge at all from these historical reconstructions is that there ever existed a celebration “towards the people” and, consequently, an altar “towards the people.” In other words, the people were never considered the point of orientation for the public prayer of the Church, nor for the prayer of the faithful. That the Church as a hierarchically ordered people was the subject of this prayer was beyond question; but, precisely for this reason, its point of orientation was not in itself, but in God.
One could object – and in fact one does object – that “God is everywhere”, and therefore it would make no sense to physically orient prayer. But this was not at all the belief of the Christians of the early centuries, not because they did not believe in divine omnipresence, but because they were much more aware and attentive than we are in recognizing cosmic symbolism, a consequence of the creative act of eternal Wisdom, and its importance for the homo religiosus.
The sign of the sun did not leave any ancient people indifferent, not even Christians, who by then knew the full meaning of this cosmic sign, in its expression of the power of the risen Christ as well as the orientation of all human history towards the Parousia. The meaning of the orientation of prayer, and therefore of sacred buildings and altars, is certainly not understood starting from divine omnipresence, but rather from our humanity, which is located in a symbolic universe, coming from God, eternal Wisdom.
 |
| A mosaic of Christ with the attributes of Apollo, the Greco-Roman god of the sun, from the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 4th century, discovered in a mausoleum within the part of the Vatican necropolis which is now under St Peter’s basilica. (Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.) |
Therefore, until very recently, there has never been an altar oriented towards the people, nor would such an orientation have been understood. Even when the sacred minister was actually facing the nave, he did so because the Church faced east rather than west. The reason is elementary even for religious people and for Christians in particular: prayer is addressed to God, the sacrifice offered by the priest rises before the Most High, the altar is a sign of the altar of Heaven that stands before the divine Majesty: only God is the point of orientation of the Church’s prayer.
Therefore, the physical point of this orientation must be capable of expressing this transcendent reality, according to a universal cosmic language. And the “people” certainly do not have this characteristic. The misunderstanding of this point is now so deeply rooted that even the traditional orientation towards God/east is understood only negatively, as “turning one’s back” on the people; an interpretation that further confirms how the people have now become, for the first time in history, not only of the Church but also of religions, the focal point of worship.
.jpg) |
| From our recent article on the solemn Mass celebrated on Sunday, December 15, in the basilica of St Ambrose in Milan. |
The answer to this question (which will continue in the next article of the series) must first clear the field of a persistent cliché, namely that this new orientation was desired by the Second Vatican Council. In reality, it happened did many other liturgical changes: the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), does not say a single word on this subject, neither regarding the orientation nor regarding the construction of new altars.
It was the Instruction issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites and the Consilium for the application of the liturgical Constitution, Inter Oecumenici (September 26, 1964), that took the liberty of introducing for the first time the expression versus populum in reference to the liturgical celebration: “It is good that the main altar be detached from the wall so that it can be easily turned around and celebrated facing the people.”
It is not clear which point of SC is being applied here, since, as we said, the liturgical Constitution does not mention it at all; in any case, it can be noted that the Instruction still speaks of a possibility, not an obligation. The text was incorporated into the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and, in its edition still under study in 2000, includes the apparently restrictive addition, “which is desirable wherever possible.”
The non-obligatory nature of altars detached from the wall and of celebration facing the people had already been highlighted by the then-president of the Consilium for the application of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, who on January 25, 1966, explained to all the presidents of the national episcopal conferences that “for a true and participatory liturgy, it is not essential that the altar be turned versus populum: in the Mass, the entire liturgy of the word is celebrated from the seat, the ambo, and the lectern, which are therefore turned toward the assembly; as far as the Eucharistic liturgy is concerned, loudspeaker systems make participation quite possible. Secondly, serious consideration should be given to artistic and architectural issues, as these elements are protected in many countries by strict civil laws.”
Said – and then denied: in all churches, the altar versus populum was in fact imposed, even leading to the abandonment and demolition of ancient altars.
The non-mandatory nature of this change also emerges from the response of September 25, 2000, from the Congregation for Divine Worship, which clarified that the indication in Inter Oecumenici “is not a mandatory form, but a suggestion.” Reflecting on how various factors may discourage making these changes, it concluded that “the position facing the assembly seems more convenient [...] without, however, excluding the other possibility.”
The rubrics of the current Roman Missal require that the priest, at the moment of the Orate, fratres, the Pax Domini, the Ecce Agnus Dei, and the Oremus that introduces the Prayer after Communion, be “facing the people” – a rubric that would make no sense if the entire celebration were necessarily already facing the people.
We can therefore observe a pattern to which we are unfortunately accustomed when it comes to liturgical reforms:
1. Vatican II does not speak of the altar and celebration versus populum;
2. the Instruction, which should simply apply the document on the liturgy, introduces the possibility;
3. Bishops and liturgists impose the obligation, prohibiting the traditional orientation, which for convenience we call ad Deum.
It goes without saying that the refrain today and then is nothing more than that of a presumed better participation of the people, so that those who defend the classical orientation can and must be opposed as “enemies of the people.” This, too, is a déjà vu of every self-respecting revolution. However, it must not lack the support of plausibility offered by science, as we shall see...
