- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I keep hearing this that the priest has his back to Christ because of the tabernacle. The priest does not have his back towards Christ. First, following the consecration, the Eucharist is on the altar. Also, Christ said that whenever two or three are gathered in His Name, He is among them. Thus the priest facing the people who are gathered in the Name of Christ IS FACING CHRIST.
[/quote]
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Christ is present in the Eucharist in the Taburanacle fully, and if the preist has his back to the taburnacle then yes he has his back to Christ. Now after the Consecration it would not matter as long as faceing the alter he would be facing Christ. And though Christ it present in the mist of 2 or more gathered in his name he is not there body blood soul and divenity as he is in the Eucharits so it is not the same.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
The idea of ad orientem was never to face the Eucharist in the tabernacle. This is why the term is “ad orientem,” not “ad tabernaculam.” Having a tabernacle containing previously-consecrated Eucharist is not necessary and adds nothing whatsoever to the Mass. Nor has tradition ever promoted the notion that one should not turn one’s back on the Eucharist – in fact, in churches constructed with the altar at the west end (like St. Peter’s in Rome), the entire congregation would turn its back on the altar at the moment of the Consecration to face east.
FWIW, this is exactly the kind of confusion and misunderstanding about the proper role of the tabernacle in the Mass that led many to move the tabernacle and put it somewhere else – just like confusion about the proper nature of the Eucharistic Species led to the withholding of the Chalice from the faithful a few centuries prior as a corrective measure.
M
malphono
Guest
This is all true, except for the part about the tabernacle. The ad orientem posture has nothing at all to do with that. Keep in mind that in the great cathedrals, e.g., the Sacrament was traditionally reserved in a side chapel. And most such churches also had free-standing altars under the ciborium (sometimes called a baldachino).
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Ad-orientem correct is to face east as the Lord in his retrun, per scripture, will be coming from the east. So you are facing towrd the Lord.
Now given that a lot of church are not built to face east in a real direction we face what is called liturgical east. the Lord in the Tabernacle. All of us including the priest who is there to offer the sacurficy and Prayers of the Mass to God on our behaves.
the only part of the mass that is direct directly to the people is the Homily the rest is to God so there is really no point for the Preist to face the layity during any other part other than when the GIRM state face the people.
Now given that a lot of church are not built to face east in a real direction we face what is called liturgical east. the Lord in the Tabernacle. All of us including the priest who is there to offer the sacurficy and Prayers of the Mass to God on our behaves.
the only part of the mass that is direct directly to the people is the Homily the rest is to God so there is really no point for the Preist to face the layity during any other part other than when the GIRM state face the people.
M
malphono
Guest
Keep in mind the reason that many churches do not face geographical east has to do with land parcels, zoning laws, etc, so sometimes it’s just not possible to build that way, particularly in modern times. So we face “liturgical east” but even that has nothing whatsoever to do with the tabernacle. The idea of “facing toward the Lord” (i.e. “liturgical east”) is in the unified posture of celebrant and congregation together. Take, for example, a small chapel where the Sacrament is not reserved, so there is no tabernacle. The building faces north. Yet Mass is offered ad orientem (“liturgical east”) where celebrant and congregation alike face toward the Lord.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
This part is your mistake. Liturgical east has nothing to do with the tabernacle; never has. As Fr. Lang points out in Turning Towards the Lord, quoting the (now) Holy Father,
Accordingly, the whole liturgical assembly, priest and people, should face the same way, turning towards God to whom prayers and offerings are addressed in this common act of trinitarian worship. Ratzinger rightly protests against the mistaken idea that in this case the celebrating priest is facing ‘towards the altar’, towards the tabernacle’, or even ‘towards the wall’.
Having the tabernacle as a “niche” in the back wall is a relatively late innovation anyway – attested from the fourteenth century, but not really prevalent until the sixteenth. For most of church history, its location wasn’t regulated at all. In many cases, the Eucharist was suspended over the altar in a receptacle, and at larger churches, cathedrals, monastic churches, and the like, the tabernacle was generally at a side altar or in another chapel.
In other words, the idea that people faced the back wall (“east”) in order to face the tabernacle is a mistaken justification for a practice that developed for entirely different reasons.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
At the moment of conecration the Lord in the Eucharist is on the Alter and so if you are facein the Alter in use are doing so correctly.
FWIW it is confusion about this that has lead to the decrees that the taburnacle is to be placed in the postion of promenance in the middle of the main alter or a side alter
Placement of the TabernacleWhat the Church Says
“The tabernacle is to be situated in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor.”
—Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1183
“The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved should be placed in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for private prayer.”
—Canon 938.2, Code of Canon Law, 1983
“The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is kept can be located on an altar, or away from it, in a spot in the church which is very prominent, truly noble, and duly decorated.”
—Inaestimabile Donum, Pope John Paul II, 1980
“According to directives of the Holy See, since the Second Vatican Council, tabernacles are always solid and inviolable and located in the middle of the main altar or a side altar, but always in a truly prominent place.”
—Catholic Dictionary, 1979
“Locating a tabernacle on an altar always remains a valid option.”
—Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite
“The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the altar, or in a side altar, but in a truly prominent place.”
so that is not the case it is now ans always has been that the taburnale should be on the main alter it can be on a side alter in a place of dignity. and prominence.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Actually, they would turn away from the altar to face (geographic) east. Here’s a diagram:
(west) PRIEST → [ALTAR] → CONGREGATION → [FRONT DOOR OF CHURCH] (east)
Right, the tabernacle should be placed in a noble, prominent position because the body of the Lord is housed there – not because people need to face it during the liturgical action.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I bow to your greater wisdom.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Hey, no need for the sarcasm. Personally, I prefer ad orientem worship, but that’s why I find it particularly important to clear up misconceptions about what it’s all about. That applies just as much to anti-orientem claims (“The priest turns his back on the people to hide the sacred action from them”) as to pro-orientem rationalizations (“Everyone faces the tabernacle because that’s where the Lord is”).
And, seriously, misunderstandings of this sort are one of the key reasons why tabernacles were moved from the central position in many churches. So dispelling them is doubly important, to eliminate that issue.
J
JM3
Guest
Remember.(sigh) I’m beginning to dislike that word. It always reminds me of a protestant trying to shove his interpretation of scripture down my throat.
You will have to show me where, in the GIRM, it says that the priest is to be ‘ad-orientem’. After all, I showed you where it says Mass is to be celebrated facing the people.
I love gregorian chant and saying the prayers of the Mass in latin. Hearing the cantor sing the responsorial psalm wrong, because they do not know how to sing gregorian chant, is one of my pet peeves. However, IF I start thinking that a Mass without latin and gregorian chant is less than, or in any way below, a Mass that does have them, then I begin to have an error in reasoning.
Both Masses are equal and any difference that I see is a problem with me, not the Mass.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
What? So Christ present in the congregation is lesser than Christ present in the Eucharist? Isn’t Christ the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? And thus the same wherever He is present?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Well, the answer to that is pretty much yes. The Eucharist is properly an object of adoration and worship; the congregation is not.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
No sarcasism intented. I just tired of arguing the point. That is not why the tabernacles were moved. That is another one of the things that changed after VII was not suppose to happen but was done in the “spirit” of the councel. as my above post show the tabenacule was to be on the main of side alteror in a place of prominence in the church not off in a side chaple.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
In that context I agree with you. But we also should love our neighbors as we love ourselves for what we do to the least of our brethren we do onto our Lord. So while other people may not be the object of our worship, the fact is Jesus is present there as well. Wasn’t the concern here is about turning your back to Jesus and not about the direction of worship?
A
archangel04
Guest
Well that’s why we give the sign of peace, what more do you want?
- Status