Ad Orientem Unveiled: What Vatican II Really Taught (Fr Dan: Ep 5)

Did Vatican II require the priest to face the people? Short answer: no.
In this episode, we unpack *ad orientem*—what it is, what the Roman Missal actually says, and why the Church’s worship faces the Lord.

— EPISODE SUMMARY —
Fr. Dan and Ken walk through the Church’s teaching and practice on Mass orientation. We clarify common misconceptions about Vatican II, explain the idea of “liturgical East,” look at the Roman Missal rubrics that tell the priest when to turn and face the people, and review the year-2000 Vatican clarification that versus populum is an option—not an obligation. Pastoral takeaways: mutual openness, reverence, and a vertical focus on God.

— KEY POINTS —
• What “ad orientem” means: priest and people facing the Lord together  
• “Liturgical East”: crucifix/tabernacle as our shared focus  
• Vatican II: what it did—and did **not**—say about orientation  
• 1964 instruction on freestanding altars: an option for celebration facing the people  
• Roman Missal rubrics: why “turn to face the people” appears (and what that implies)  
• 2000 clarification (CDW): facing the people is **not** obligatory  
• Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger): avoid labels; seek the best realization of the liturgy  
• Pastoral how-to: reintroducing ad orientem prudently and catechetically

— QUOTES/REFERENCES —
• Michael Lang, *Turning Towards the Lord* (foreword by Joseph Ratzinger)  
• General Instruction / Roman Missal rubrics (on turning to face the people)  
• CDW, 2000 clarification on celebration facing the people

— CHAPTERS —
00:00 Intro — Ad Orientem Unveiled: What Vatican II Really Taught
01:04 Homily begins: Fr Dan Yasinski: What Vatican II didn't say
03:08 What “Ad Orientem” means & it's historical significance 
05:28 Why “Liturgical East” matters (crucifix & tabernacle as focus)
06:21 Does the Church allow for Ad Orientem?
09:53 Benedict XVI (Ratzinger): mutual openness, not labels
11:38 Interview with Fr Dan Begins - Did Vatican ask priest to face the people?
15:36 Q&A segment: What are the rubrics? 
18:24 How are the rubrics over looked?
19:58 Why are the instructions from the Vatican on Ad Orientem ignored?
22:32 Responding to the critics of Ad Orientem worship
27:27 Is Ad Orientem worship non-inclusive?
30:46 Conclusion & invitation: “We turn to the Lord”

If this blessed you, please follow/rate the show and share it with a friend.  

Transcript

For nearly 2,000 years during the mass, the priest and the people faced the same direction towards the Lord. Then something changed.

But did the second Vatican Council ever actually ask for it?

Welcome to episode 5 of our weekly series on the liturgy. Today we are asking three big questions. Why did the church for centuries celebrate the mass facing one direction then suddenly turn around? Was this really the reform Vatican 2 intended or a change that crept in later? And have we lost something deeper by changing the way we worship? First, you'll see a homaly delivered by Father Dan and then we sit down here for a further discussion. So, make sure you stay tuned to the end. To the ordinary churchgoer,

the two most obvious effects of the liturgical reform of the second Vatican council seemed to be the disappearance of Latin and the turning of altars towards the people. But those who read the relevant text will be astonished to learn that neither is in fact found in the decrees of the council. That is a quote from the forward to the book turning towards the Lord by Father Michael Lang. A great book, but the author is right. Two of the most obvious effects of the reforms after the Vatican Council in the 60s were the disappearance of Latin in the turning of altars towards the people that is mass facing the people. Prior to the second Vatican council, this was not the norm. The norm is what we would call ad orient worship where the priest faces the same way as the people which we practice here at Lords from time to time. And this was the norm in the church for some 1600 years until 1964. In fact, recent scholarship suggests that Ad Orientum was the norm pretty much from the beginning. And this is what I'd like to cover this week in our homily number five on the sacred liturgy that of that orient. And this week I only want to cover what the church teaches on the subject. Then we'll move on to some of the theology and the history. Maybe next week if I have time. First the definition of terms. It's good to define our terms when we have conversations. But what does the phrase ad orient mean? It's a Latin phrase that means to the east. To the east. It refers to a lurggical posture where the priest and the people face the same direction. They face the Lord. Up until recent times, a very important facet of prayer and worship was direction. direction. We've lost this sensibility in our modern culture, but in the ancient church, the direction of the east was of primary importance when it came to prayer. The east is of course the rising of the sun. And so we believe that at the second coming of Jesus when he comes to judge the living and the dead that he will come from the east. The east was also the place of Jesus's ascension. He ascended at the Mount of Olives which was east of Jerusalem. And in the book of Genesis, we read that God planted the Garden of Eden, the garden of paradise where in the east. It's why to this day we as Catholics have the tradition of burying our dead facing east. You'll notice that when you go to a cemetery. And so, please don't bury me facing west. I just might come back to haunt you.

But I mean that bury me facing east because east means facing the Lord. The east represented the coming of the Lord. It represented our primordial home. It represented Jesus in the early church. so important, which is why they celebrated mass facing east because they wanted to face the Lord, priests and people together. And what developed in the church eventually was is what is called the liturgical east where the crucifix in the tabernacle became east. And so together, congregation and priest face the Lord. And so that's where the word ad orientum comes from and what it means a little bit. Perhaps more on that next week. But concerning this practice, I'm I'm often asked, "Father Dan, does the church even allow at orient?" It's a good question considering the fact that the practice has all but disappeared in the last 50 years. And to that question, I I always respond, yes, it does. It does allow for it. And let me walk you through this. Thanks for hanging in with me. After the second Vatican council in 1964, permission was given for mass to be said facing the people and to some benefit we have to say for there was a renewed enthusiasm to understand the mass and to be engaged in it. But what most people don't realize is that the practice of ad orientum was retained as an option. It wasn't gotten rid of. And we see this in the rubrics of the mass, the instructions in the Roman missile there, the red book. It tells me what to say and what to do. And in three places in the Roman missile, it instructs me, the priest, to face the people. And three times it does that. Father, turn around and face the people. And so we have to ask why would the rubrics direct the priest to do this? Why include this if the priest is already facing the people? Well, it would be redundant. The explanation is of course that the rubrics and vision the option of the priest facing the same way as the people. And so turn around father and say this. And so the use of ad orientum worship is found right in the rubrics of the mass. Moreover, in the year 2000, the Vatican itself clarified this issue. In that year, a bishop from Europe sent a question to Rome. Bishops do that from time to time, asking whether or not the mass had to be said facing the people. Is that an obligation? The bishop asked. The bishop asked this because there's an instruction for altars to be constructed freely standing so that mass can be said facing the people. And so the bishop asked Rome, "Does this mean that mass must always have to be said facing the congregation?" The Vatican in a letter in 2000 responded by saying, "No." The Vatican said that mass facing the people is not an obligation but a suggestion. Moreover, it went on to say that whatever the direction chosen by the priest, the interior disposition of the priest and the people must always be towards the Lord, not towards each other. For the direction of the liturgy is not a closed circle. It's not horizontal. It's vertical to the Lord. And so this is one of the reasons why ad orientum remains an option because it fully makes known the direction of the liturgy, the direction of the mass which is not towards each other, it's towards the Lord. And so in summary, ad orientum was the norm of the church for 1600 years or more up to 64. The practice was retained after the second Vatican council and it was clarified by the Vatican in the year 2000. And to end, I just wish to quote Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. And this is a quote in his response to that clarification given by the Vatican. a quote addressing the sometimes heated debate on this issue. Here's what he said. The congregation's response should thus make for a more relaxed discussion in which we search for the best way of putting into practice the mystery of a salvation. The quest is not to be achieved by condemning each other, but by carefully listening to each other and even more listening to the internal guidance of the liturgy. The labeling of positions as reactionary or conservative or progressive achieve nothing. What is needed is a mutual openness in the search for the best realization of the memorial of Christ. End quote. Wise words from the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. This is why it's good we celebrate both here at the parish. In celebrating both ways, facing the people and Ad Orientum, we have a mutual openness which is often absent in the church these days on both ends of the spectrum. In celebrating both, we honor the long tradition of the church and we honor the church's present day practice. Thank you for your kind attention. Together now we turn to the east. We turn to the Lord. God bless you. God love you. Amen. Welcome back, Father Dan. Good to be here again, Ken. Man, that was a great homily. Well, you're very kind.

But I think it's it's sometimes some of the things that you said will be so new to people, it's worth asking again. So clarify again quickly. Did Vatican 2 actually ask for the priest to face the people? There is nothing within the documents of the second Vatican council that the priest should face the people. You won't find it in there. Okay. So then who asked for that? So it it was something that came in after 1964. There's there was a a group put in charge of the reforms of the council. It was called the consulium and they were given the task of implementing the reforms asked by the council. some of that work. Mass facing the people wasn't in there. In 1964, the Pope released a document called on ecumenical matters. It was an instruction on some of the reforms that were going to come forth. And that's the first time we see it in 1964. And I have a quote. I I I brought it for you. Can Can I read it for you? This is the first time. This is a paragraph 91 of that document. All right. The main altar should preferably be freestanding to permit walking around it in celebration facing the people. This was written in the context of how the altar should be orientated because before that altars were always against the wall where the tabernacle was. Now there were there was this ask for altars to be freestanding which again is not in the council itself but it's it's an ask for the altar to be freestanding. so that the priest can walk around it and sense it and mass celebrated facing the people. Mass facing the people is not absolutely indispensable for pastoral effectiveness. And so what we have here is the first mention of mass facing the people in uh 1964. And when it is mentioned, it it's mentioned as an option uh not a requirement as again the the church is still teaches today as we we we saw in the homily but this is the first time we see it officially in the documents of the churches in 1964. You don't find it here. Okay. Okay. Something that strikes me about that freestanding altar is that it could lead to a lot of renovations within the church. Yes. because they're not. Oh, we have to have a freestanding altar. So then all of a sudden, is it fair to say that a lot of renovations could have started because of a statement like that? Because I think so. You're right. Yeah, cuz how else can you walk around it? It's stuck to the wall. Pull it off. Okay, let's call the contractor. Right. I think the the Vatican envisioned just keeping the old altars where they were and just putting in a freestanding altar. But many of the spaces weren't designed for that. there there wasn't room for two altars and having two altars would is still I think maybe not a problematic thing in the tradition of the church. There were more than one altar but but there wasn't room for two altars. So what did they do? Well, they had to take out the high altar and then put in a freestanding altar. And then what do you do with the high altar once you've taken it out? Well, there's crazy stories of what happened to our high altars. We I don't know where they went. They were destroyed. some thank goodness for put in museums. We still have them but but you're right. Yeah. Okay. But this is the first time mass facing the people is mentioned in the documents of the church. Okay. You also said thank you for that. You said in your homily that uh the rubrics of the Roman missile imply that the priest may face the same direction as the people. Um, there could be some people just wondering, well, what are the rubrics and how authoritative are those things? Cuz that's not language that the typical person uses. Yes, there's a saying amongst priests. We'll get back to talking to Father Dan in just a second, but first, if you've been blessed by this video, could you help us out in a few simple ways? Number one, like and share this video. YouTube's going to see that, then push this video out to our larger audience. So, that's something you could do. Number two, could you pray for us? We're always in need of grace and we would greatly appreciate your prayers. And number three, if it is possible, supporting our mission at ken andjanel.com. Your support makes it possible for us to keep on producing videos just like the one you're watching. You know, all our content is free, but it's not free to make. Every contribution really does make a difference on our side. So, back to Father Dan. There's a saying amongst priests. Say the black do the red. That's because we have the our Roman missile is the big book you see on the altar at mass. And and the black is what the priest says and the red is what the priest is supposed to do. And the term rubrics it means red instruction or red ink I think is the in fact the origin of that word. important things were written in red, hence the the word rubric. And so rubric, the rubrics of the mass are are what the priest is supposed to do rather than say the the red parts. And so we're supposed to do them. And as I indicated in the homily, there are instances in the rubrics where it directs the priest to face the people. It's written in red. Well, Why would I face the people? Why would it tell me to face the people if I'm already facing the people? It's redundant. Yeah. The church doesn't leave redundancies in in in her rubrics. The only explanation is that she envisions that mass can be said the other way around, right? So, father turn around. So, it's right in the rubrics of our present missile of our present book. And people don't know that. Just to be clear. And that book is the same. Yeah. Yes. everywhere all across the world. Okay, it's universal in that regard. The rubric, it just strikes me kind of odd that if it's written, say the black do the red and it's written everywhere and it's implied the priest is not facing the people but he has turns. Why? If it's and it's written everywhere. How is this overlooked? Because it implies he's not facing the people when he's celebrating the mass. Am I correct? It's implying he's not facing the he's facing towards Yes. Exactly. So I we could say yes maybe it implies he's facing the other way but we could also say that at the very least the option remains that for the priest to be celebrating the other way at the very least. So we could perhaps say both. Okay. Are you saying why why why is it why is this overlooked? I think that's a loaded question. And I don't know the answers to all that. You might be asking then, are you really asking why isn't at an celebrated more today? Is that Well, yeah. Yeah. Because it says, you know, you say do the red. Well, then do the red, right? So, a number of reasons. I think I I don't know the I wouldn't pretend to know them all. I'd have to really study a little more in depth the history of exactly what happened after the after 64. Mhm. All I know is it's been the constant teaching of the church since ' 64 that the option remains for mass to be celebrated Ad Orientum. In ' 64 we see that again in 93 there was a document I didn't quote this in the homily but in 93 the Vatican once again iterated that mass can still be celebrated at Anthem. And then in 2000, the question is why is this ignored?

One could say presently we're at a time in our church where some some see a difficulty in introducing it again because it has become foreign to our congregations. And so so where do you even begin? And how do you do it in a sensitive and pastoral manner, right? so that the people understand they're not shocked. You don't do damage to their faith. I think that's a legitimate concern for priests and bishops. Even if it is a a legitimate option, how do we how do we begin to do this? We do have to say some are just outright against it. Oh, I just read a cardinal that was like banning priests from doing that in his dasis and anyone and punish actively punishing them, right? I mean that that's that's in some extreme cases in some some places in in the world right and I there's a debate right now you know as to you know can a bishop do that right concerning ad orient if it's a universal law of the church does he have the authority to exactly so do not bishops have to obey the universal law of the church now I would say it priests should be working with their bishops in this regard concerning And it's a prudent thing to do and then to do it in a way you catechize the people, right? And and so I again I'm rambling a bit here, but a part of it is again some don't know how to use it or reintroduce it into the church right now. So that's why it's never addressed. Others are against it. Others simply don't know. I I I think it's possible that some priests might just look at that and think it's a leftover. I I don't know. Hey, so what what was your experience in seminary? Did you ever talk about this or was it something? No, we talked about it as seminarians, but it wasn't really taught or addressed at all. Okay. Even though it says in the red that's you face now the people. That just seems odd to me. It is odd. You're right. I know that there's a lot of critics out there that will say Ad Orientum is precisely and things like that is precisely what Vatican 2 needed to reform because these things are theat theatrical rituals part of clericalism as a result of like things that happened after the council of Trent or going back to the 8th and 9th century. Um, and so they're very critical of Ad Orientum. And but you're saying this is part or are you saying is this part of the solution that we're experiencing here in the church? Yeah. I think it's it's it's important to have or add orient present in the church today. In in previous homilies you in discussions we've had you you may remember I I I talked about the liturgy as a tree a tree that develops and grows. And I think this is a a limb like that we need like it's a it's a trunk of that tree. Okay. And why I say that is because we have an unbroken line of tradition of Ad Orientum worship in the church. That if the church has celebrated something for years, for hundreds of years, and this one is even thousands of years, we can be sure it was guided by the presence of the Holy Spirit and that it's immemorial, that it's something that should be with us forever.

And that's Ad Orientum. And so so my response to these people that think Ad Orientum is a you know too theatrical or clerical is that it it's it's a main trunk of the liturgy of the church. It's an element that has to be there and we would do harm if we would remove it. It's been with us for thousands of years. And so why just that fact and we can talk about other reasons why we have it. Why would we want to get rid of it? And uh I I I wonder at this seems odd. Yes. And yes like we value so much for example doctrine that has been with us for all this time. It has developed but this is Ad Orientum and just getting rid of it is not so much if it's been for with us for over a thousand years it's not all of a sudden developed out of existence it's like taking a chainsaw to that tree and like now it's gone right yes that's what I that's my position I'm a humble diocese priest who are I'm do my best to understand these things and to celebrate the liturgy in the way that the church intends today. And so that's my belief. So it's not something that's clerical. It's something that's been with us. And how can something that's been with us, guided by the spirit, handed on to us from one generation to the next, all the saints of the church celebrated it this way? How how can that be a bad thing? Yeah. Well, I mean I agree, but then you also have to your point in the homily the Vatican clarifying this and in the year 2000 coming out with a statement saying that mass facing the people is an option not an obligation. That's correct. Did I get that right? Yeah. Uh why don't more people know about this? Like I I'm struggling to put the pieces here together. Yes, I me too. I I I struggle with this as well. It's it's I I quoted a a book uh in that in that homily and the forward was written by Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict and and he was he said now after the Vatican has clarified this in the year 2000 why not why can we not start discussing this more you know the Vatican has made this clarification so let's start discussing this and so he was trying and other theologians are trying too and we're starting to see it. This is why we're having the conversation. Yes. And why more aren't we can we can surmise I think we've done that a little bit already. Some again are concerned pastorally you know how do we even start implementing this in the churches? Some are against it. Some don't really care or they're they're not aware of it. And so I don't know that the 100% answer. I think those those three reasons are all mixed in there. Okay. I I I suspect that this is this is a hot button topic when it comes to the liturgy. The orientation of the priest, you know, this is because it's pretty noticeable. It's it's exactly like it's very very not noticeable. And so some critics will say, well, you have the priest is back is towards the people. Doesn't feel very inclusive. Kind of sets them apart. Uh we're all about inclusivity now, aren't we? And so what would you respond to that? How would you respond to that criticism? Thank you. And because I that question I think gets back to the previous one there's a negative view of ad orient worship often in in the Catholic world at large and and that negative views as you indicated we use the phrasing the priest's back is to the people as we will see in subsequent homilies that is not at all the proper way to describe that form of worship. The proper way is of course the priest faces the same way as the people and this is how worship is done in the eastern church to this present day. If you go to the divine liturgy, the Byzantine church, other churches, other different rights, the priests and the people, they all face the same way because we all face the same way when we're praying together because we're facing the Lord. And so it's a it's a misnomer to say the the priest's back is to the people. That's a misnomer. We're facing the same way to the Lord. For when when the priest prays at the mass, who who's he praying to? Who is he addressing? God. So, he faces the tabernacle. He faces the crucifix. And when he commiserates and talks with the people, he turns around and talks with them. So, we it's a it's a beautiful thing. We face the same way. I I like to always remind people that the liturgy can be envisioned as Jesus the good shepherd leading us to heaven. We're on a pilgrimage and we follow him. Because as you know, Ken, a shepherd does not use fear when he handles and moves his sheep. He doesn't go behind like a cowboy and he doesn't use fear. But instead, a shepherd goes before and he leads. He walks. And what does the flock do? They follow. That's the mass. The the the the priest representing Jesus, the good shepherd. We're on a pilgrimage to heaven and he's leading us. That's a beautiful way to describe the mass. It is. Yeah. And so that that's a positive uh way to view at orient. We need to, you know, rediscover that today in the church. I like that image. Yeah. And I and in this disc discussion, we also have to say presently mass facing the people is an option. It's an option in in the church. So liturgical laws allow both. So um do you have any closing comments for today or Yeah. Yeah. No, I I think just another comment and it it points and we'll get to this in in previous homilies, but it just it's important to realize that the direction of the liturgy and adorant is appropriate because the direction of the liturgy is God. It's vertical, not horizontal. Right? The direction of the liturgy is vertical. That's the primary direction. Secondarily, horizontal. We're connected with each other because we're connected with God. That's the the reason Ad Orientum

more perfectly identifies that movement of the liturgy towards God the vertical because we're all facing the same way. Whereas mass facing the people, it kind of closes us into a closed circle and turns us in on ourselves. and and that that can lead to I think problematic things. And in that clarification from the Vatican in 2000, it's interesting. I'm not sure if I stated in the homily, it said even if mass is celebrated facing the people, the interior disposition of all in the church is to be at orient towards the Lord, not towards each other. And so Ad Orientum more beautifully points to that direction of the liturgy and what it is and so it's a beautiful thing. So part of the church and we we do well to discuss it a little bit more and I guess that's what we're doing now. Well, thank you for being a good shepherd instead of a cowboy. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.