About this blogger:
A theorist, organist, and conductor, Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004), and did graduate work in Musicology. He serves as choirmaster for the new FSSP parish in Los Angeles, where he resides with his wife and children.
Connect on Facebook:
Connect on Twitter:
“In spite of what it is currently called, the music of these songs is not modern: this musical style is not new, but has been played in the most profane places and surroundings (cabarets, music halls, often for more or less lascivious dances with foreign names). The people are led on to rock or swing. They all feel an urge to dance about. That sort of “body language” is certainly alien to our Western culture, unfavorable to contemplation and its origins are rather suspect. Most of the time our congregations, which already find it hard not to confuse the crochets and the quavers in a 6/8 bar, do not respect the rhythm; then one no longer feels like dancing, but with the rhythm gone to pieces, the habitual poorness of the melodic line becomes all the more noticeable.”
— Unnamed choirmaster (Northern France) circa 1986

ABOUT US  |  OUR HEADER  |  ARCHIVE
“Ad Orientem” • Archbishop Naumann’s Letter
published 6 December 2016 by Jeff Ostrowski

VER SINCE I RELEASED an article about Bishop Libasci’s letter, my inbox has been exploding. I had no idea there was such a groundswell of support for “ad orientem,” especially among younger priests. What’s even more surprising is the extremely positive feedback priests are reporting. Indeed, several Midwestern bishops publicly celebrated “ad orientem” even before the special appeal by Cardinal Sarah, who was appointed Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship by Pope Francis in 2014.

Some bishops are making an appeal for “uniformity” in Catholic worship, as Bishop Doherty’s terse letter does. Archbishop Naumann’s letter (SEE BELOW) seems to encourage uniformity, yet makes clear that “ad orientem” has equal footing with “versus populum.”

But the uniformity emphasis is hard to reconcile with numerous statements from the USCCB. Consider this official statement signed by Bishop Serratelli:

23 April 2009 — The reformed liturgy offers a variety of options, encourages ministerial creativity, and at times admits a diversity of forms. The participation aid should be so designed as not to establish, once and for all, a single or rigid pattern of liturgical celebration. […] The arrangement or selection of liturgical texts must not result in the suppression of alternatives and options for the congregation (or for the celebrant and other ministers, as applicable).

The following letter is the most extensive treatment I’ve seen:

588 Archbishop Naumann ad orientem A

588 Archbishop Naumann ad orientem B


When I lived in Kansas, my friend ARCHBISHOP KELEHER hadn’t retired yet. Because I’ve only visited Kansas twice since 2005, I don’t feel qualified to comment on the current liturgical situation. Nevertheless, if there’s an authentic move towards liturgical uniformity, I hope more dioceses will start enforcing what Vatican II mandated:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, under normal circumstances, it should be given first place in liturgical services.

There are more items which could use some “uniformity.” For example, Vatican II mandated the retention of Latin; it is not optional.

Several related articles:

* *  Chief Reasons For Mass “Facing The People”

* *  Bishop of Manchester • Letter Re: “Ad Orientem”

* *  Why I’m Rejoicing over Catholic Herald Errors

* *  Does Your Bishop Enforce The GIRM?

* *  Showdown in Arkansas over “Ad Orientem”

* *  Indisputable Facts About “Ad Orientem” Celebration

* *  When To Face the Altar & When To Face The People

* *  Screenshots Proving “Versus Populum” Was Allowed By The 1572 Missal

* *  Additional Articles • Re: “Ad Orientem” Celebration