Pints With Aquinas - Next Level Ad Orientem - Objections and Replies | Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Episode Date: August 3, 2024

Father Pine responds to viewer objections to his video on Ad Orientem from a few weeks ago. Support The Show: https://mattfradd.locals.com 📖 Fr. Pine's Book: https://bit.ly/3lEsP8F 🖥️ Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ 🟢 Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas 👕 Merch: https://shop.pintswithaquinas.com 🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ 🔵 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd 📸 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd  

Hello, my name is Father Gregory Pine and I am a Dominican friar of the province of Saint Joseph. I teach at the Dominican House of Studies and I work for the Thomistic Institute and this is Pines with Aquinas. A couple of weeks ago I made a video about the celebration of the holy sacrifice of the mass ad orientum. So you've probably come across this conversation before about liturgical orientation, whether the priest should face versus populum, that is, towards the people, or ad orientum, that is, towards the east. Some people say facing the

father, some people will say like towards the apse, various ways in which to describe it. But whether the priest faces the people or the priest and people face the same direction in their liturgical orientation. And yeah, in the days slash weeks since that video, I've gotten a couple of emails from folks with objections or with counter arguments, so I wanted to entertain some of them. Um, and I don't always respond to emails directly. It just depends upon how much time I have and whether, yeah, whether I can. Uh, but I thought that I'd make just a little video

so I can hopefully answer the majority of them and to do so, yeah, responsibly. So here we go. Okay, in the last video, I began by saying that the church has the right to organize her liturgy. So a lot of these questions aren't so much set down by natural law or divine law as they are by ecclesiastical law, which is a kind of divine law but a divine positive law. You're like, all right, Father Gregory, keep going.

So the church in her wisdom has made a determination about the celebration of the Holy Mass, that it is permitted to celebrate it versus populum, and we talked about the text there from Sacrosanctum Concilium and the way that it is interpreted in the general instruction of the Roman Missal. So what I'm not saying in my argumentation is that there's nothing good about the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass versus populum. Obviously the Church thinks that there is. So like, my arguments aren't meant to be demonstrative, like it is only this way and it is no other way, nor are counter arguments

meant to be demonstrative. It is only this way and no other way. What we have here is a kind of constellation of arguments which argue for a fittingness of one or the other. And so in the last video I just advanced arguments for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at Orientum. I didn't entertain other arguments. Is that limited? Certainly. Is life limited? It is. You know, we all make choices. So yeah, I think that like whenever you're dealing with arguments, you could broaden the scope, but the question is how far. So I'm trying to broaden the scope a little bit more in this. I hope that's helpful for you.

Still, I'll be arguing for the celebration of the holy sacrifice of the mass adeorantum, but taking into account some of the objections that those who argue for a mass celebrated versus populum would advance. And I think that it's helpful in these instances to recognize the difference between like, okay, what we want in the abstract

and then what we do in the concrete. Because you know, like in the last video I cited Joseph Ratzinger, that is Pope Benedict the 16th, who advances many arguments for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at Orientum, but who celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass versus populum, you know, at least in its public, you know, like as its public celebration as the Holy Roman Pontiff. So I think that it's just to be taken into account. So he'll say that Ad Orientum is better, but he's also conscious of the fact that Mass has been celebrated versus populum for some number of years and that it's not good that the people of God experience a constant flux

because what we saw after the Second of God experience a constant flux because what we saw after the Second Vatican Council was a kind of flux which disturbed many of the liturgical rhythms of the people of God and we don't want to just perpetuate that as if like the organization of the liturgy were subject to a social or political cycle that it could be constantly revisited in a way that's destabilizing or discomforting anditing. And I think we see, you know, like with Tradizionis Custodis, recently with rumors about a new document concerning the TLM, that that fear, the fear of flux or the fear of the removal of permissions, you know, that that can do real harm and that people suffer very concretely as a result. So like Joseph Ratzinger for instance proposed a kind of orientation versus crutchum, like her towards of the cross. So that's one proposal I think,

what I'm making is a proposal back in the direction of auto-orientum albeit with sufficient catechetical and mystagogicalogical resources, like an explanation that would be helpful to people. And I think that like these videos, I tried to do them in a way that's, again, responsible, but that supplies principles and arguments so that you can think it through, so that you can judge it in light of the direction of the church's pastors and in light of the celebration of the sacred liturgy. So I thought we could just take on five counter arguments and just, you know, kind of weigh them, interpret them, and then see what is to be made of them.

So one argument, Jesus faced the disciples and the celebration of the last supper. Okay. That is an argument. So like what Jesus did, that's what we want to do insofar as it translates to our life. But I think here we have to be conscious that what we're aiming for is an adherence to his institution and not like a stilted literalism. And I sometimes fear a kind of stilted literalism in the argumentation or in the implementation of certain individuals, you know, because for instance Jesus spoke Aramaic. Does that mean that we should speak Aramaic in the celebration of the sacred liturgy?

Yeah, I don't know. You know, like the Mass was celebrated in Greek for the first couple centuries of the church and then it was celebrated in Latin for the next several centuries of the church and now it's celebrated in the vernacular. Can we make an argument as to one being better than the other? Sure, that's for a different video. But I think that we just, yeah, we should be conscious of whether we're doing something along the lines of adherence to his institution or a kind of stilted literalism, and that has to be done again with sufficient deliberation. Another thing I would add is that, like, what we're imitating is not just the Last Supper, but also the Passion. That is to say, not just Holy Thursday,

but also Good Friday. So the Church has a right to interpret and implement in light of, you know, the socio-cultural background like the celebration of liturgy, quote unquote, in the synagogue setting, the Lord's institution at the Last Supper, what's conveyed by it at Good Friday, and then the experience of the early Christian church and of subsequent, you know, Christian churches. So we hold that to be traditional, which the church has taught always and everywhere, according to the shortened definition of St. Vincent of Larenz. So again, we should be careful like exercising a preferential option for the ancient or the old versus, you know, what we want to do, I think, is make a measured judgment of the church's life and teaching. So what do I mean here? Be clear, Father Gregory.

We don't just like leap over the tradition and then reclaim something according to our preference or according to our deeply felt sympathy. We try to think with the church and love with the church and implement with the church, right? So I think that we're in a strange position insofar as a lot of liturgical traditions were sundered, you know, in the last 60 years, and that we are trying to make sense of our experience. And there's always a risk of a kind of arbitrariness when you recover traditions which weren't handed on organically. So it's like, do I make stuff up? Do I claim stuff from the

pet? You know, what are we doing here? So I think that we feel that acutely here with this question. But when it comes to facing the disciples, I just say we're looking for adherence to the institution rather than a kind of stilted literalism. There are other things at work, namely the socio-cultural background of synagogue worship, the fact that we're not just representing the Last Supper, but we're also representing the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, all of which gives us reason, you know, to do what we do. Okay, so then another question was, which way does the crucifix face? Which I think is a cool objection, because obviously the crucifix faces the people of God. And I think here we can kind of respond by way of phenomenology, which is to say,

think about the way that these different things disclose themselves or the way in which disclosure is operative in different senses. Because a crucifix is a holy image, all right, so it's meant to adorn a sacred place or to render a place sacred, and it's also an object of adoration. We extend the worship of adoration to those things which mediate the presence of Christ. But ultimately, worship before a crucifix terminates in Christ. Whereas what you have in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is something somewhat distinct. Namely, you have a holy action, not a holy image, and the activity has its own character. This is the very activity for

which the space is consecrated. So what you're dealing with here, in the person of the priest and in his orientation, we're talking more about the subject of adoration. He is the one who is offering worship. He is the one who is adoring. And it terminates in the Father. So the sacred liturgy is celebrated, you know, by the priest and the person of Christ in the Spirit unto the Father. So, you know, you have this kind of logic of sacrifice at work there in the sacred liturgy, where Christ the priest offers Christ the victim to God the Father for the people. And the argument would be that orientation to ad orientum captures that better. Okay.

Next objection, third of five, is that when the priest faces the people, when the priest orients liturgy versus populum, he better mediates to us or gives us the humanity of Christ. I can see the sense of this argument. And to a certain degree, I can sympathize with this argument because when the priest faces the father, it can create a kind of distance or an apparent distance experienced by the people of God, which I imagine some will feel isolating or alienating. But I think here it's helpful to be conscious of our own socio-cultural setting and its peculiarities. Like the 21st century really really cares about

authenticity or really really cares about the proximity of witnesses. Part of that is just natural. That's just human. Part of that though is cultural and kind of this human. And so I think that like what we want out of the liturgy is the holy and The holy discloses itself as the holy discloses itself and sometimes that's by distance right to be holy is to be set apart We don't want to like lean into that in such a way that we lionize Isolation and alienation, but we need to be conscious of what's actually going on

And I'd say too like when the priest faces the people, sometimes it can work. I think it can work with good priests, but we've experienced, I've experienced that it might not work with, I don't want to call anyone into question, but quote unquote bad priests or celebrants who lack something of the arse celebrandi. And one thing I love about the sacraments is that they're designed to work even with quote unquote bad priests. Again, not judging anyone in particular, calling anyone's integrity into question, but there are ways in which the sacraments can be celebrated which make it tough on the people of God.

Like whether cringy or outright worse than that blasphemy, you get it. And so the ad orientum orientation can help remove to a certain degree or extent the personality of the priest such that it poses fewer obstacles or less in the way of obstacle. Okay, I realize that's controversial, so happy to respond to further objections on the subject. Fourth is, well, what about the resurrection? Right, so, you know, okay, I can see how the sacrifice mediates the passion, but what about the resurrection? Isn't that not too part of the Paschal Mystery? Certainly. And I think it's a good instinct to be kind of balanced in our approach to the mysteries

of the life of Christ, not emphasizing one to the detriment of another in a way that warps what Christ intends. All of the deeds and sufferings of Christ save. That is true. And those deeds and sufferings, the mysteries of the life of Christ, are made present in the sacraments because Christ intends them to be made present in the sacraments. And so, it stands to reason that the sacred liturgy should capture something of the resurrection. And it does. I would argue that it does.

So the tradition of the Mass is that the Mass mediates the passion in a particular way. Okay, so St. Thomas will say that, yeah, the mysteries of the life of Christ are present in the sacraments, but especially the passion. He singles out the passion for all seven sacraments, and he singles out the passion for the Most Holy Eucharist. And I think that reflects the way in which Christ lived his life, or kind of curated his life, because he intended that his life merit as an ensemble, but an ensemble that's crowned by the passion. Okay?

Now, the resurrection enters in because it's the confirmation that this is God whom we put to death, but furthermore it mediates salvation. It itself is a cause of salvation, and that cause is present in the words of the Most Holy Eucharist, like in the Canon of the Mass, for instance, we mention the resurrection. And it's also present in the orientation. When we ask, like, why is it that the priest faces east with the people of God? St. Thomas will say because that's the origin of the movement of the heavens, which testify to the divine majesty, the cause of the resurrection, because that's where paradise is held to lie, which we return to in the how much more of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, right? So, like, we're looking towards the resurrection, the resurrected life, and that's also the

the place from which Christ will come. He says as much in the Gospel of Matthew, so like, he will come at the end of the age in his resurrected body and conduct us into the fullness of our resurrected life at the Second Coming, at the general resurrection. So I think it's present there in words and in orientation and gestures. So yes, the resurrection is present. All the mysteries of the life of Christ are present, but I would say that the sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are meant to communicate the Passion in a particular way, not to the detriment of the resurrection. And I would say one further point is, like, let's not forget that there is still some distance, as it were, to the resurrection.

It's not necessarily like a comfy, cozy, snuggly mystery. You can think about the fact that the disciples don't necessarily recognize Christ after the resurrection. There's a change that's taking place. Or that our Lord doesn't permit St. Mary Magdalene to hold on to Him because He hasn't yet ascended to His Father and her Father, to our, you know, his God and your God. You know, and that the Lord is only with his disciples in his resurrected body for 40 days before the ascension.

So there's still a kind of distance, a distance which is meant to conduct us unto heaven. Okay, so I think that that's present too in the Mass. Okay, getting towards the end. Fifth and final objection, what about the banquet? Right, so we've heard this, that the Mass is a sacred banquet. St. Thomas writes a beautiful prayer to that effect. It's a big emphasis, especially with, you know, like liturgical theology in the last several years. But I think that like when people lean overly much into the banquet imagery, it can be used irresponsibly. I'm not saying that it leads necessarily to this type of use, but it can be used irresponsibly. I'm not saying that it leads necessarily to this

type of use, but it can be used in abusive ways. So people are like, it's a banquet, so we should use ordinary food and they'll change, you know, the elements. No longer bread and wine, but things that are closer to people's sensibilities, which is an abuse. Or they'll be in a kind of encouragement of a quasi-celebration of the lay faithful while they're being invited around the altar and take parts of the Mass that they shouldn't and stuff like that, because it's a banquet and everyone participates or like even the practice of self-communication because everyone takes from the table. So you can see obviously that's irresponsible it doesn't follow necessarily from this type of argumentation but when you lean too heavily on it it can be warped or it can be abused. So it's a banquet but it's a sacred banquet and I

think, I believe believe that the banquet comes to us by way of the sacrifice, right? So we feast on the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which has been offered for us, right? We think about the imagery of the pious, the holy devout pelican, which feeds its young on its own flesh. So this is no ordinary banquet. It's a sacrificial banquet.

And we'll only ever have the fullness of that banquet in heaven when the sacraments themselves give way before the realities. So you know that in heaven there will be no sacraments, there will be no signs because there will only ever be the things themselves, the graces themselves, the realities themselves. So I think that part of the banquet is meant to be delayed, deferred, or meant to grow into it, to acclimatize ourselves to it. And I think some of the distance of the mass, or as it were the deferral or delay of that fullness of banquet imagery, is intended. Okay, so those are some objections, and those are some responses. Obviously, again, I didn't

say everything, but that's the limitation of doing a video in 15 minutes plus. Alright, so this is Bonds with Aquinas. If you haven't yet, please do subscribe to the channel, push the bell, and get sweet email updates when other cool things come out. If you haven't yet, tune into the podcast, God's Planning, where four other Dominican friars and I talk about subjects just like this on the reg in short little 30-minute snippets. And then, yeah, say a prayer. I finished a book about the Eucharist and it's going to, yeah, I'm shopping it out. Hopefully it's helpful. And that's it.

So know of my prayers for you. Please pray for me and I'll look forward to chatting with you next time on Pines with Aquinas.