The preface dialogue, not facing the people

[japhy]

I’m seeking a catechetical explanation for why the priest does not turn to face the congregation when he says “Dominus vobiscum” at the beginning of the Preface. I have found the two following explanations, but I am happy to broaden my knowledge on this matter.

Q: Hitherto the priest, since he went up to the altar, has always turned toward the people when addressing these words to them. Why does he now say the words toward the altar?
A: The Preface is the introduction to the sacred Canon, or Action, of the Sacrifice, the most solemn part of the whole Mass; and now that the priest has once entered upon it, he turns no more to the people till it is concluded, but remains in the most intimate communion with Almighty God, and with the whole host of heaven. (The Glories of the Catholic Church, p. 237)

Why does not the priest now turn the people, when saluting them? He has after the Orate fratres, like Moses on Mount Sinai, entered into the holy cloud, and, therefore, he henceforth communes “face to face” with the Lord; henceforth he has eyes and mind directed only to the altar… (The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 554)

 

[Chatter163]

I am not sure I see the two reasons. I see only one, which is the one that I was taught, and appears after the A. in the OP. Where is the second?

The priest does turn again toward the people for communion. Beyond that, I am not sure what is being asked.

 

[MarkThompson]

Why does not the priest now turn the people, when saluting them? He has after the Orate fratres, like Moses on Mount Sinai, entered into the holy cloud, and, therefore, he henceforth communes “face to face” with the Lord; henceforth he has eyes and mind directed only to the altar… (The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 554)

This part can’t quite be right, can it? If the priest is oh so focused on the altar, he shouldn’t be talking to the congregation in the first place. If he’s talking to them, he ought to be focused on what he’s saying, not distracted thinking about the altar.

 

[japhy]

I am not sure I see the two reasons. … Where is the second?

I quoted from two sources. The reason was essentially the same, but it was two sources:

… now that the priest has once entered upon it, he turns no more to the people till it is concluded, but remains in the most intimate communion with Almighty God, and with the whole host of heaven. (The Glories of the Catholic Church, p. 237)

… He has after the Orate fratres, like Moses on Mount Sinai, entered into the holy cloud, and, therefore, he henceforth communes “face to face” with the Lord; henceforth he has eyes and mind directed only to the altar… (The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 554)

I see only one, which is the one that I was taught … Beyond that, I am not sure what is being asked.

I’m just curious if anyone knows any additional explanations (practical, mystagogical, or otherwise) on why the priest does not face the congregation for this dialogue of the Mass.

 

[japhy]

This part can’t quite be right, can it?

Well, then, have you a better explanation?

 

[MarkThompson]

Well, then, have you a better explanation?

Fraid not. In fact, I don’t even have a made-up, post hoc rationalization for you. I’m just saying that as far as post hoc rationalizations go, the one I commented on seems flawed.

 

[Chatter163]

Fraid not. In fact, I don’t even have a made-up, post hoc rationalization for you. I’m just saying that as far as post hoc rationalizations go, the one I commented on seems flawed.

It may seem flawed to you, using your reasoning, but it is the reasoning of the Church and appears in various liturgical commentaries of the pre-VII period.

 

[MarkThompson]

It may seem flawed to you, using your reasoning, but it is the reasoning of the Church and appears in various liturgical commentaries of the pre-VII period.

So actually it’s just the reasoning of Church commentators, then? That’s pretty much a world of difference.

 

[Chatter163]

So actually it’s just the reasoning of Church commentators, then? That’s pretty much a world of difference.

I never said that. Not sure why you would twist words like that. I said the the Church’s reasoning appears in the liturgical commentary books. It is discussed by the commentators, but the reasoning is the Church’s. Sorry to see that you wish to twist words so.

 

[MarkThompson]

I never said that. Not sure why you would twist words like that. I said the the Church’s reasoning appears in the liturgical commentary books. It is discussed by the commentators, but the reasoning is the Church’s. Sorry to see that you wish to twist words so.

No need to get your hackles up. Instead of being so defensive, maybe you can explain what makes this “the Church’s reasoning,” and not just these commentators’ guesses or rationalizations about what the Church’s reasoning might have been. Anyone can write a book.

So, do we have any actual Church document that says, “We are adding this rubric for such-and-such a reason”? I’m guessing the answer is a big fat no.

 

[Chatter163]

No need to get your hackles up. Instead of being so defensive, maybe you can explain what makes this “the Church’s reasoning,” and not just these commentators’ guesses or rationalizations about what the Church’s reasoning might have been. Anyone can write a book.

So, do we have any actual Church document that says, “We are adding this rubric for such-and-such a reason”? I’m guessing the answer is a big fat no.

I responded as I did because I am tired of your twisting other people’s words to justify your disdain for the EF, along with other sarcastic comments that you have made about the EF in this forum. I also was unimpressed by your suggestion that you did not find the reasons for that feature of the rite to be compelling.

I suggest that you get Jungmann’s Mass of the Roman Rite and read what he says, then use the footnotes and bibliography there to locate other sources of a more authoritative nature.

 

[MarkThompson]

I responded as I did because I am tired of your twisting other people’s words to justify your disdain for the EF, along with other sarcastic comments that you have made about the EF in this forum. I also was unimpressed by your suggestion that you did not find the reasons for that feature of the rite to be compelling.

I suggest that you get Jungmann’s Mass of the Roman Rite and read what he says, then use the footnotes and bibliography there to locate other sources of a more authoritative nature.

It really doesn’t matter what “impresses” you. The claim I was responding to said that the priest would not face the people because he is supposed to be totally engrossed in the altar and God. Well, if that were the case, he shouldn’t be addressing the people at all, since that will necessarily direct his attention (even if not his gaze) elsewhere, unless he is to make a perfunctory, thoughtless job of speaking the words Dominus vobiscum without actually giving any consideration to the people. So no, I don’t find that explanation compelling. Maybe there’s some other, more compelling, legitimate explanation (not rationalization) out there; I do tend to doubt it, though. Plenty of things in the rite arose through almost unconnected vagaries of historical practice. (For instance, why does the Last Gospel occur after Ite missa est? Hint: it’s not for any symbolic reason.)

Sorry you think I’m such a big hater on the EF. Maybe I should stop going if I hate it that much, I didn’t even realize.

 

[MikeDunphy]

In A.D. 252, Saint Cyprian wrote:
For this reason also the priest, by way of preface before his prayer, prepares the minds of the brethren by saying, “Lift up your hearts,” that so upon the people’s response, “We lift them up unto the Lord,” he may be reminded that he himself ought to think of nothing but the Lord.

When the priest prays the Eucharistic prayer, his mind ought to be entirely focused on God. It seems to me that when the priest attempts to put aside all other considerations, he is most likely to be distracted at the start of his efforts, so if he strives for a deep recollection before the prayer starts, he is more likely to be be able to pray the whole prayer admirably.

While it is true that to invite the people to join him in giving thanks to God, his focus has to diminish somewhat, it seems to me that even then, his thoughts can remain directed foremost to God, and only secondarily to the people.

I might be mistaken.