• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Which Way Does Your Priest Face For The Prayer After Communion?

Jeff Ostrowski · September 27, 2013

365 Paul VI Pope Paul VI in India E HAVE EXAMINED the rubrics of the Ordinary Form here and here, and we saw that the current Missal assumes priest and people will be facing the same direction during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

However, there appears to be a discrepancy in the Rubrics … no great surprise, since the current Missal was put together with haste, and even the Vatican dicastery had to apologize for all the errors and typos contained in those early 1970s directives. The discrepancy has to do with the direction the priest must face to read the Prayer after Communion.

AS BISHOP PETER J. ELLIOTT has pointed out (Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, §350), “The celebrant may choose to say the Prayer after Communion and impart the final blessing at the altar.” The rubrics do indeed allow this, but they seem to imply that the Prayer after Communion be read facing the people:

The 2011 GIRM says:

165. Deinde, stans ad sedem vel ad altare, sacerdos, versus ad populum, dicit, manibus iunctis: Orémus et, extensis manibus, orationem post Communionem recitat, cui præmitti potest breve spatium silentii, nisi iam præcesserit statim post Communionem. In fine orationis populus acclamat: Amen.

166. Expleta oratione post Communionem, fiant, si habendæ sunt, breves annuntiationes ad populum.

167. Deinde sacerdos, extendens manus, salutat populum, dicens: Dóminus vobíscum, cui respondetur a populo: Et cum spíritu tuo. Et sacerdos, manus denuo coniungens, et statim, manum sinistram super pectus ponens et manum dexteram elevans, subdit: Benedícat vos omnípotens Deus et, signum crucis super populum faciens, prosequitur: Pater, et Fílius, + et Spíritus Sanctus. Omnes respondent: Amen.

165. Then, standing at the chair or at the altar, and facing the people with hands joined, the Priest says, Let us pray; then, with hands extended, he recites the Prayer after Communion. A brief period of silence may precede the prayer, unless this has been already observed immediately after Communion. At the end of the prayer the people acclaim, Amen.

166. When the Prayer after Communion is concluded, brief announcements should be made to the people, if there are any.

167. Then the Priest, extending his hands, greets the people, saying, The Lord be with you. They reply, And with your spirit. The Priest, joining his hands again and then immediately placing his left hand on his breast, raises his right hand and adds, May almighty God bless you and, as he makes the Sign of the Cross over the people, he continues, the Father, and the Son, + and the Holy Spirit. All reply, Amen.

Roman Missal, Third Edition says:

139. Deinde, stans ad altare vel ad sedem, sacerdos, versus ad populum, iunctis manibus, dicit: Oremus. Et omnes una cum sacerdote per aliquod temporis spatium in silentio orant, nisi silentium iam praecesserit. Deinde sacerdos, manibus extensis, dicit orationem post Communionem. Populus in fine acclamat: Amen.

140. Sequuntur, si necessariae sint, breves annuntiationes ad populum.

141. Deinde fit dimissio. Sacerdos, versus ad populum, extendens manus, dicit: Dominus vobiscum. Populus respondet: Et cum spiritu tuo. Sacerdos benedicit populum, dicens: Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, Pater, et Filius, + et Spiritus Sanctus. Populus respondet: Amen.

139. Then, standing at the altar or at the chair and facing the people, with hands joined, the Priest says: Let us pray. All pray in silence with the Priest for a while, unless silence has just been observed. The the Priest, with hands extended, says the Prayer after Communion, at the end of which the people acclaim: Amen.

140. If they are necessary, any brief announcements to the people follow here.

141. Then the dismissal takes place. The Priest, facing the people and extending his hands, says: The Lord be with you. The people respond: And with your spirit. The Priest blesses the people saying: May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, + and the Holy Spirit. The people reply: Amen.

I FEEL THE RUBRICS HERE are not precise. First of all, why should the rubrics say again to face the people for the blessing if the priest is already facing the people (see above)?

It is true that the 1969 GIRM says:

122. Postea, stans ad sedem vel ad altare, sacerdos versus ad populum, dicit: Orémus et, extensis manibus, orationem post Communionem recitat, cui præmitti potest breve spatium silentii, nisi iam præcesserit statim post Communionem. In fine orationis populus acclamat: Amen.

122. Then, standing at the altar or at the chair and facing the people, the priest says, with hands outstretched: “Let us pray.” There may be a brief period of silence, unless this has been already observed immediately after communion. He recites the prayer after communion, at the end of which the people make the response: “Amen.”

However, if you click here, you’ll see that the 1970 Missale Romanum (“Ordo Missæ cum populo”) omits the injunction to face the people. All it says is:

Deinde, stans ad sedem vel ad altare, sacerdos dicit:

Then, when it’s time for the final blessing, the 1970s rubrics say:

Sacerdos, versus ad populum, extendens manus, dicit:

How can we understand this discrepancy? My guess is, they wanted the priest to face the people when he says “Orémus.” Then, he ought to turn around to read the Prayer after Communion, because it would be strange to have a server hold the Missal on the altar steps. Then, when it’s time for the final blessing, the priest once more turns around. (If you think this is a lot of turning around, you should see a Low Mass according to the 1962 Missal at this point).

Finally, remember that the Missal rubrics don’t always explicitly tell the priest to “turn toward the altar.” For instance, the rubrics omit this when it’s time for the priest to kiss the altar: it’s common sense that he needs to turn around for this.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Ad Orientem, Mass Facing The People Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

Although the New Testament is now so much more important to us than the Old, we must remember that the archetype of the Canon of Scripture is the Old Testament. At first that was the whole Bible, to Christians as to Jews. When the apostles speak of “Scripture” they mean the Old Testament only. Indeed, the way in which the books of the New Testament came to be considered canonical was by making them equal to those of the Old.

— Rev’d Doctor Adrian Fortescue

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up