O
- Status
N
Neofight
Guest
Christ is being honored, and since no matter which way we face, which way we turn, where ever we go, Christ is present, I’m not convinced Dave’s contention is all that relevant.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The high priest would enter the Holy of Holies and not even be seen or heard.
M
Murmurs
Guest
Maybe I’m being pedantic, but surely if the priest is “behind” (facing liturgical west) the altar, he faces both congregation and the altar?
There is great symbolic and historical value to be argued from either orientation as far as I can see (obviously both are equally valid). However while a very interesting line of thinking I’m not convinced this is the most coherent suggestion.
There is great symbolic and historical value to be argued from either orientation as far as I can see (obviously both are equally valid). However while a very interesting line of thinking I’m not convinced this is the most coherent suggestion.
D
DaveBj
Guest
I’m confused. If the priest is behind the altar and facing ad populum (as in a “normal” OF Mass), is he not also facing the altar? He certainly doesn’t have his back to it. 
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually the article specifies praying in the direction of that altar which has the Tabernacle on it. That’s my take, anyway.I’m confused. If the priest is behind the altar and facing ad populum (as in a “normal” OF Mass), is he not also facing the altar? He certainly doesn’t have his back to it.
J
JM3
Guest
From the article;
Inter oecumenici 91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.
The altar is the focus in the Sacred Liturgy, not the tabernacle.
I believe it was Br. JR that said St Fancis was the first to put the tabernacle on the altar, because he had no other place to put it (that’s what I remember, anyway). For the first 1200 years there was no tabernacle on the altar. For 800 years there has been. Which ‘tradition’ has precedence?
Facing ‘God in the tabernacle’ is not the point.
Inter oecumenici 91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.
The altar is the focus in the Sacred Liturgy, not the tabernacle.
I believe it was Br. JR that said St Fancis was the first to put the tabernacle on the altar, because he had no other place to put it (that’s what I remember, anyway). For the first 1200 years there was no tabernacle on the altar. For 800 years there has been. Which ‘tradition’ has precedence?
D
drforjc
Guest
Then-Cdnl. Ratzinger covers this in depth in The Spirit of the Liturgy
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
First, let me be clear: I like BOTH. I would be disappointed if we didn’t have these options.
From a protestant background, the versus populum is a bit of a comfort (for lack of a better word) to have our leader pray with us.
Ad orientem definitely adds a sense of reverence.
That said, I agree with JM3. It’s not about addressing God in the tabernacle; it’s about addressing the Lord’s coming into our presence at the altar.
When Mary Magdalene went to the tomb on that first Easter, Jesus spoke to her. She turned to face him, and when it became evident that she was in the presence of the living Lord, she kept her attention there until told to “go, tell my disciples…”. She didn’t turn her gaze back to the tomb (tabernacle).
Whichever posture better fosters your ability to focus all attention on the altar of sacrifice, that’s the posture you should favor.
From a protestant background, the versus populum is a bit of a comfort (for lack of a better word) to have our leader pray with us.
Ad orientem definitely adds a sense of reverence.
That said, I agree with JM3. It’s not about addressing God in the tabernacle; it’s about addressing the Lord’s coming into our presence at the altar.
When Mary Magdalene went to the tomb on that first Easter, Jesus spoke to her. She turned to face him, and when it became evident that she was in the presence of the living Lord, she kept her attention there until told to “go, tell my disciples…”. She didn’t turn her gaze back to the tomb (tabernacle).
Whichever posture better fosters your ability to focus all attention on the altar of sacrifice, that’s the posture you should favor.
O
outremer
Guest
I think ad orientem is often a theological beltwether.
Countless people say it is “the priest turning his back on the people.”
Others say it is “the priest and the people facing the Risen Son in the Liturgical East together.”
There are profound theological differences in those two statements.
Funny thing is, Vatican II did not make the change to versus populum. It is a myth that has to be constantly busted.
Countless people say it is “the priest turning his back on the people.”
Others say it is “the priest and the people facing the Risen Son in the Liturgical East together.”
There are profound theological differences in those two statements.
Funny thing is, Vatican II did not make the change to versus populum. It is a myth that has to be constantly busted.
J
JM3
Guest
How many churches actually have the altar positioned in a way that the people are facing east? I believe the FSSP’s Mater Misericordiae Mission in Phoenix, AZ. faces south. You can’t get to the orient by going south. Which way you face is irrelevant. The altar is the focus of the Sacred Liturgy. Not the tabernacle or the way you’re facing.
2
27lw
Guest
These 2 viewpoints also shake out as:
- Priest leading the people (ad orientam) is viewed as emphasizing the sacrificial nature of the mass.
- Priest facing the people is views as emphasizing the** banqueting** nature of the Mass.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The question, though, is whether this is a ‘banqueting’ posture that’s universal, or merely part of a particular cultural experience?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Yes, and furthermore the article seems to assume that the Tabernacle is necessarily placed on an altar attached to the rear (“east”) wall of the sanctuary. Church architecture varies a great deal and in many churches built in the late 20th century, or in the present century, there is no such altar attached to the rear wall and the Tabernacle is placed somewhere else.
P
ProVobis
Guest
FWIW, the argument does have some validity as there is reference to the Holy of Holies in the EF prayers, and the EF is perfectly legitimate liturgy which can be celebrated in a Latin Rite church.
B
b_ulmen
Guest
would you elaborate (very briefly) please. VII didn’t “turn the priest around”?
EDIT: Belay that. I found the answer in another post. thnx.
T
twf
Guest
Cardinal Sarah, whom Pope Francis appointed Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and thus the highest authority on Roman Rite liturgy (other than the Pope himself), has also lauded the Ad Orientem posture. See catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25239
I have definitely seen it used in the OF. In fact both Popes Benedict and Francis have used A.O. (Benedict more than once and Francis at least once - at the tomb of Pope St. John Paul II).
I have definitely seen it used in the OF. In fact both Popes Benedict and Francis have used A.O. (Benedict more than once and Francis at least once - at the tomb of Pope St. John Paul II).
A
AttendeDomine
Guest
… wouldn’t it be a part of the cultural experience of first century Palestine, and thus of Jesus Christ during the Last Supper? Isn’t that the point?
I’m not asking rhetorically but because I’m not sure.
T
twf
Guest
Our Lord didn’t “face” the apostles. The Passover supper was shared at a “horseshoe” shaped table with all the guests facing the same direction… as is also the case in traditional Christian liturgy (Priest and people facing the Lord together). As noted above, Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, promotes Ad Oritentem worship.
- Status