The mass I normally attend on Sunday mornings, the 9:30 am Norwegian mass in the St. Joseph chapel, has changed its format. By that I mean that the priest, who used to face the congregation as he celebrates mass (versus populem or toward the people), now faces away from the congregation (ad orientem or toward the east). I stayed in my pew for all of ten minutes and then left the church, hoping that the 9:30 am English mass at St. Olav's church across the street would have the usual format with the priest facing us. Luckily that was the case. But this is a dilemma for me, because the St. Joseph chapel has now physically moved its altar against the back wall so that the priest has to face away from us. This was done deliberately and I have no idea why. I only know that I hate the change. I find it rude, stiff, and unwelcoming. The priests have celebrated masses versus populem for over sixty years, since the Vatican II Council, and I see no reason to change the format now. This means that all masses in the chapel will now have the priest facing away from us, and God only knows how long it will be before the masses in the larger church will remain versus populem. And this is not just Oslo, Norway. It's also the case in many churches in the USA. I have to ask why. The decision to change the format is up to the local bishops and pastors. This means that the pastor of St. Olav's church decided to change the format without even consulting his congregation, asking us what we think of such a change.
You may think that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that this is another example of 'change for the sake of change'. The actual change has neither been discussed nor explained to the congregation. It's just another example of a religious patriarchy forcing stupid and unnecessary changes on the faithful.
So I wrote to the church pastor and told him how I felt. I mentioned that I will not consider increasing my financial support of the church, as I had actually thought about doing. That's life, and I owe no explanations to anyone. I mentioned that Christ sat around a table at the Last Supper and broke bread with his disciples. He didn't have his back turned to them. He wasn't rude or unwelcoming. I said that I found it rude that the priest now faced away from us. We could hardly hear what he said. I did not feel more in touch with the celebration of mass; I felt annoyed and disappointed. And a bit angry. Angry at a religious male patriarchy that again decides what is best for everyone. They're wrong. They will not drag in more churchgoers this way. I need only think of the Church of St. Vincent de Paul in Albany NY that has its altar at the center of the church and the chairs in a circle around it. Those masses are packed with people. Those masses are welcoming, inclusive, warm, not stiff. I've written about this church before: A New Yorker in Oslo: The Church of St. Vincent de Paul I wish there were more like them, and I hope that they do not change their format.
The pastor of my church did write back to me, thanking me for my concerns. He hoped that we could one day sit down and discuss our viewpoints. I wrote back and reiterated my concerns and my disappointment, and mentioned that perhaps the church should consider addressing the pedophile scandals that have plagued the Catholic church for many years. Those are the issues that need addressing and resolving, not worrying about changing the orientation of how the priest says mass. I have not received a reply and I know that I won't. Ad orientem or versus populem is a distraction from the more important issues facing the church. For the first time ever in my life, I wished that I was a member of the Protestant church, where women can be ministers and where the tone is welcoming and inclusive, the way that Christ would have wanted it, in my opinion. I wonder sometimes if any of the religious clergy actually consider what Christ would have wanted or preferred. They think they know with certainty what Christ wants, because they are ordained as priests. But I don't think they do, in my humble opinion.
(For an interesting discussion and debate of these issues, I refer you to this article: Ad Orientem: Thoughts on debating the non-essential | Catholic Culture The author presents the pros and cons in depth. But still, I want the priest to face us when he says mass. It's what I've know for my entire life, and I don't see the point of this change now, especially when there are no good reasons for and explanations of it).
