Talk:Versus populum

Spirit of the Liturgy quotes

First of all, the editor removed sourced information in the article without an explanation. Two reverts later and he still has not explained why it was removed. The quotes from "Spirit of the Liturgy" are too long to be placed in an encyclopedic article and are borderline copyright violation (or at least WP:QUOTEFARM). Perhaps we should try to paraphrase what Benedict is saying in our own words instead of copy-pasting large swaths of quotations. Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Spirit of the Liturgy should not really be spoken of as written by Pope Benedict. It was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who then had in this matter less authority than Cardinal Robert Sarah had when as head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments he requested bishops and priests to celebrate Mass "ad orientem". When Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI and acquired the authority, had he wished, to order, not just request, a change of orientation, he didn't. He didn't even order that his preference for having a crucifix on the altar as a common reference point become the rule: the rule continued to be that the crucifix be on or near the altar. It appears too that Cardinal Ratzinger was mistaken in thinking that the oldest churches in Rome were oriented with the apse to the west only in imitation of Saint Peter's and that Saint Peter's was oriented as it was and is merely because of a hill very close to the burial place of Saint Peter. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the objections that have been raised? Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing. It's just a further objection to the edit. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

People are missing

I do not think I see the point of having a plethora of photos of "versus populum altars" (most of which could just as well be ad orientem) when there is no priest celebrating Mass on them. Is it not the point of versus populum the direction the priest is facing, and so the maximum information would be conveyed by photographing an active liturgy with priest and people to demonstrate how they are facing each other? These barren empty photo shots do nothing to illustrate the subject. Elizium23 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree per WP:NOTGALLERY. It's not a long article. It needs only one, possible two if one of them includes a priest. I suspect there are free images that show the priest. This is a frequent problem on Wikipedia. There is a mindset that if an image is available and free, it must be used. Everyone wants to get their photo in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Mass, St Mary's Basilica Bangalore.jpg is used in Mass (liturgy). Sundayclose (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That one is very nice. Here are some I found on Commons; comments are welcome.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm flexible, but I'd say remove every image now in the article and put either File:Mass, St Mary's Basilica Bangalore.jpg or File:JfStAugustineChurchBaliuag4201Bfvf 03.JPG at the top. Possibly put the other one later in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Another good one: File:SeminarioAsidoniaJerez2.jpg. I think it's about time to make the change if there are no objections. Elizium23, I defer to your judgment. Sundayclose (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Descriptions

@Bealtainemí: I think the descriptions are becoming needlessly complex. Also, I question the wisdom of making this all relative to the altar, when the priest could be versus populum at the chair, as well. Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course he would be facing the people when at the chair. And when, for instance, he gives the homily at Mass. The priest preaches versus ad populum (passive participle, turned towards the people), but not versus populum (preposition). "Facing the people" can be used of either, but versus populum is not just "facing the people". Both "ad orientem" (in its recent meaning) and "versus populum" refer only to the posture of the priest at the altar. Using either of them in relation to the stance of the priest when not at the altar would be ridiculous. The relationship with the altar (as in the image at the top of this article) is an essential part of the definition. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bealtainemí: I agree with Elizium23 that the description is needlessly complex. There is a point where describing in too much detail is counterproductive for the reader who is unfamiliar with the topic. Additionally, "posture" is a confusing word as it usually refers to how someone holds their body; we don't need to suggest that the issue is whether the priest stands up straight or in another posture. It's the position relative to the people that is at issue. The word "posture" needs to be changed. Sundayclose (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

So you don't like "posture", although it is used by, for instance, bishops (example; example). What about "position"? (example; example; example). Do you really think "orientation" is a better word, in spite of the possible (mis)interpretation today of "the priest's orientation" (and the dictionary definitions (examples; example; example)?

Do you really hold that the position of the priest in relation to the altar has nothing to do to what is meant by celebrating versus populum, so that the term could theoretically be applied even if the priest stood to the right or the left of the altar (as the Anglican Book of Common Prayer told the priest to stand on the north side of the altar)? Bealtainemí (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't written for bishops, or even for Catholics or Christians in general, or for any particular group. In terms of which way the priest faces, "orientation" is more likely to be understood more precisely than "posture" or "position".

The emphasis is on the priest facing the people (the literal translation of versus populum) in the instructions in the Roman Missal. Sundayclose (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The emphasis is not on the priest (Catholic or not) "facing the people": he or she does that in all kinds of circumstances. The phrase, whatever about its literal meaning, concerns exclusively the position that the priest takes up when celebrating Mass, which he can do only at an altar. "Orientation" (homo or hetero?_) is more ambiguous than "position" or "posture". Bealtainemí (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse. You are only confusing the simple issue. I like your own term for it: "stance". Elizium23 (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, do you accept "stance"? Do you still think versus populum refers to a priest generically "facing the people"? Bealtainemí (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium73, perhaps avoidance of the infelicitous phrase "facing the altar" will overcome your objection? Bealtainemí (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"Orientation" is far better than any of the terms suggested, but I will not battle over the use of "stance". Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made the change suggested by Elizium23. Do you and he accept the change to "stance of a priest who, while celebrating Mass, faces the people from the other side of the altar"? I suppose we cannot change the preposition actually used by Kuehn. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Eastern rites

This article is lacking a mention of the Eastern rites, (except in the history) if only to say that the Eastern rites do not typically celebrate versus populum, although I can think of some exceptions in India. Elizium23 (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Scope of the "Disputation" section

It seems that the section near the end of the article titled Disputation is only concerned with the Catholic view point (mostly as a backlash against the liturgical reforms of Vatican II it seems). Are there any Orthodox or Protestant views on the subject? I looked online briefly but I could not find much aside from the irrelevant blog. It doesn't seem fair to only have the Catholic viewpoint though. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to include other denominations, but if there are no reliable sources then obviously the section will only include the Catholic perspective. It's not an issue of fairness. The issue is reliable sourcing. Sundayclose (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing in lead: WHY? Reason?

Why did Vatican II adopt it? Don't search here for the answer. Arminden (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)