The direction the priest faces during Mass

[mike182d]

dumspirospero:

Then mr. all-knowing, since you seem to be the definitive source on all the Church’s problems…why don’t you please enlighten us as to what is the problem.

The problem is lack of orthodoxy. If all that is required of a Catholic is just being a “good person” - as most homilies today suggest - they can do that at home instead of spending an hour of their weekend coming there.

If they’re taught that it is not just about being a “good person” but having faith in the Truth of Jesus Christ and *dying *for Him, the people will see Mass as a necessity and not just something cultural they can do if they’re part of “club Catholicism.”

Jesus asks us to *die *for Him, and not many people are going to give up their lives for some cute, cuddly, teddybear Jesus. They will die for a man that was stripped, scourged, and nailed to a tree for every offense they’ve ever committed against God.

 

[mosher]

otm:

And when Christ said the first Mass, He was participating in the Passover meal, which has no place for the celebrant “turning his back” or “facing East” in it. It was a meal in which all were gathered around the table.

Actually, the method of seating of the age and in that culture they would have all been facing the same direction. The around the kitchen table motif is not historically correct.

 

[mosher]

## As the gestures have varied a great deal in the past, and were reduced even before V2, this is a bit hard to believe. Was the Church less the Church in 1960 than in 1910 because several Signs of the Cross in the Canon had been abolished during the interval ? ##

No, not at all, it is jus that in the Theologyof Liturgy some things are much more important than others. There is a heirarchy to the importance of symbols and signs. Some teach more than others, some are essential and some are not. The reason why this one is so important is because there has indeed never been a time in th entire history of the Church that the mass was celebrated versus populum and it is only us latins that are doing this right now. Of course the one exception to this was Papal Masses. The pope traditionally had a privledge to celebrate the litugy versus populum due to the improper direction that St. Peters was built. However, even in the old days all the people would face east at the point of the Eucharistic Prayer so the symbolism was kept in tact in some respect.

Benedict XVI has a great explination of all of this and the necessity of facing east “ad orientem” in his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”

 

[mosher]

Petertherock:

OK something is confusing me. If I understand this correct some people are saying the Priest should face away from the people because he is facing God. Well, how do we know where God is? Where does it say God is only in the East? As far as I know it’s only Muslims that face the east when they pray to Allah or Muhammed or whoever they pray to.

Actually it was the custom to face the east toward the rising sun in prayer in anticipation of the return of Christ. This was practiced for a millinia and then the Chruches were mandated by St. Anslem to be built so that we all faced east by default so as to ease the practice so people would not have to think about which direction was east.

BTW it is not that those who practice Islam face east in prayer it is that the face Mecca so in China they would turn west for prayertime.

 

[otm]

totustuusmaria:

It isn’t so much the priest facing “away from the people” as the priest facing “ad orientem” – toward the East and toward heaven. The two directions are called “ad orientum” (toward the East) and “vertus populum” (turned to the people). The problem with vertus populum is that it obscurres the sacrificial nature of the liturgy and makes an enclosed circule between the people and the priest with very little room for God. When the people and the priest face the same direction, it emphasizes that they are together offering the same sacrifice to the Father.

I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I have never had even the slightest impression that the sacrificial nature of the Mass was obscuered by his facing the congregation; if anything, it was done in the open in full view instead of hidden, with only his back to view.

And as to an inclosed circle; my church is in the half-round, and we are all out of the sanctuary; he is three steps higher than anyone and as such is raised up for view of all. I see no enclosed circle at all. And there is certainly room for God; I fail to see how that has changed at all.

 

[otm]

mike182d:

Christ never wore a stole, or read from the Gospels, or chose between Eucharistic prayer I, II, III, or IV, or placed Himself in a tabernacle, or used unleavened “wafers,” or had a gold chalice…

I guess we should get rid of all those, then.

Technically, if I’m not mistaken, the Last Supper is not the “first mass,” its when the Eucharist was instituted as a Sacrament. Since Christ had not yet died, and the Mass itself is a rememberance of Christ’s death on the cross, I don’t believe the Last Supper could be considered a true “Mass.”

OK, let’s call it the first celebration of the Eucharist. It took some time before there was any reading of the Gospels, for pretty much all scriptural scholars posit that the Gospels were not written for some years after the Ascension. What would you call what the Church was celebrating in that period of time?

I am not a minimalist, and I am not suggesting that we “throw out” a number of items. I am suggesting that the direction that the priest used to face (ad orientem) was something that came in some time subsequent to the origination of the Mass and how it was said for some time in the Church. Subsequently, changes were made for then perceived theological reasons; changes have been made for since perceived theological reasons, and one is not necessarily better than another. Some folks get really upset about the changes; they often also have little or no perspective of any true history, and all too readily treat it as if that’s the way it always was. Only it wasn’t.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

My favorite thread topic, I just can’t pass up the chance to comment…again!

I want to suggest that after we all explain just how we know the liturgy should be, we should then sit down and read some of the voluminous work on the subject.

Truth is, we should sit down and read the material before we post. We would save ourselves much later embarrassment. Unfortunately, instead of embarking on a worldwide program of instruction on the liturgy as it was, we were given a non-organic sea change and no instruction at all. As a result, we have instead a worldwide liturgically-ignorant Catholic population repeating sayings in the vernacular with no greater comprehension of the Mass than before.

And this is true, even when the NO is said with great reverence and no effort on the part of the “presider” to be the STAR of a community meal. It would be true even if said in Latin which is permitted to all priests everywhere!

I am sure it meets the needs of some posters to post, post, post, but those of you who really care about the liturgy and the great, beautiful, overwhelmingly important event that it is, will at least want to read Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy. For you, it should put to rest any discussion of “facing east.”

And for those of you who believe yourselves to have every right to determine what’s important, and what is not important in the liturgy, the information will at a minimum provide you with an idea of how you appear to those who are more knowledgeable. (I think your messages go right over their heads, mosher and totustuus!)

Anyway, Catholics, there is no reason for the “blind to be leading the blind” when we have world famous experts at our finger tips…or at least at our local libraries!

“Let us turn towards the Lord!”

Anna

 

[Petertherock]

totustuusmaria:

It isn’t that God is “in the East” but that the East represents the kingdom of Heaven. In other words, it’s symbolic. In the Church today we’ve lost the power of symbols. The East is a common direction that all the people in the Church face (when the priest isn’t ministering to the people) in order to worship God.

Oh I get it…you want symbolism over substance.

OK I have another question about this matter. Can you still have a vernicular Mass with the priest facing away from the people? Or is it allowed to have the altar in the middle of the Church?

 

[mosher]

Petertherock:

Oh I get it…you want symbolism over substance.

OK I have another question about this matter. Can you still have a vernicular Mass with the priest facing away from the people? Or is it allowed to have the altar in the middle of the Church?

1. I don’t think that is what he is saying
2. Should be a different post but the quick answers are yes (as it is already beng done) and no because the Congregation said so.

 

[mosher]

Anna Elizabeth:

And for those of you who believe yourselves to have every right to determine what’s important, and what is not important in the liturgy, the information will at a minimum provide you with an idea of how you appear to those who are more knowledgeable. (I think your messages go right over their heads, mosher and totustuus!)

You make me laugh

But substancewise your post was well thought out and very deliberate and I appreciate that.

 

[mosher]

otm:

OK, let’s call it the first celebration of the Eucharist. It took some time before there was any reading of the Gospels, for pretty much all scriptural scholars posit that the Gospels were not written for some years after the Ascension. What would you call what the Church was celebrating in that period of time?

If you are interested in the real answer to this question I would submit that prior to the writing of the Gospels you had the apostles present and the disciples who were able to recount from memory the revelation of the life of Christ. When the apostles were old the Gospels has to be written to preserve that revelation. Hence the celebration in the very early Church (Primordial Church) was not contingent upon the Liturgy of the Word because there was no need for it to be read as it was recited to the faithful.

otm:

I am not a minimalist, and I am not suggesting that we “throw out” a number of items. I am suggesting that the direction that the priest used to face (ad orientem) was something that came in some time subsequent to the origination of the Mass and how it was said for some time in the Church. Subsequently, changes were made for then perceived theological reasons; changes have been made for since perceived theological reasons, and one is not necessarily better than another. Some folks get really upset about the changes; they often also have little or no perspective of any true history, and all too readily treat it as if that’s the way it always was. Only it wasn’t.

Again, if you had read my earlier post it would have been clear to you that not only was it directly related to the manner in which the Passover (Institution of the Eucharist - The Last Supper) was celebrated but that it was also the practice of the faithful to pray in an estwardly direction in anticipation of the return of Christ. These two combined provide the basic historical and cosmological significance of the liturgy celebrated “ad orientem” as is done in all other rites of the Church is technically is to be done in our rite as well.