I myself, at 52, am too young to remember the pre-Vatican II liturgy, or rather I only do so very vaguely.
See, for me the key word seems to be “lead”. You don’t have to be facing the same way to lead. A teacher or a professor leads class while facing them.
I being perfectly serious here: If the point is to face east, then facing west is just as good because due to the earth being circular, west eventually flips around to east.
Not really. East is always east, and west is always west. One can get to the same point either way, but if one is eastbound, at no point does he flip to west bound.
I would venture to guess that many churches are not built on an exact east-west line (or they’re even built on a north-south line), so I would venture to guess that it has nothing to do with actual direction, does it?
I would guess (I have nothing to back this up…) that centuries ago, churches were more often built with that in mind. This past century, though, perhaps not so much.
So what you’re saying is that it is not a strict requirement?
I doubt it is. It was simply the expected tradition. It’s not a strict requirement today, or else hundreds, if not thousands, of churches are built improperly (on the grounds of orientation alone… nevermind if they have kneelers, etc.).
No, it’s never been a requirement, and in fact for various reasons many churches, including major basilicas like St. Peters (old and new), St. John Lateran, and Santa Maria Maggiore have been build with the apse at the west end.
It is considered ideal for them to face East, but often they don’t. But in that case, the priest is still facing “liturgical” East.
Which is really just a human-defined arbitrary direction. There’s no real reason I’ve seen besides “tradition”.
You act like “‘tradition’” isn’t a reason to do something. Did you see my four-part post about the importance of the East in Catholic worship?
I see lots of stuff about the orthogonal direction east, which is a 90 degree turn to the right if you are at the equator looking toward true north. You have said above that this has nothing to do with the orthogonal direction east though because Churches are not required to face east.
But so many churches were built facing the east for those very reasons. Sometimes a worthwhile tradition is abandoned out of neglect or ignorance. The Eastern Churches have not abandoned this great tradition, and I think the Latin Church was a bit careless in letting it fall by the wayside.
Mass can still be celebrated in Latin, and Mass can still be celebrated facing the east. These other “traditions” (a completely vernacular and versus populum Mass) are rather new.
Only because we’ve arbitrarily defined the front of the Church as liturgically east. We could just as easily call it north, south, north by northwest, 15 degrees west of south, or 127.817192 degrees south of north. When you don’t have a definite origin point for orientation purposes, you can say anything.
Of course they can. Also, being newer doesn’t make it any less valid, licit, or reverent.
Well said. His description is such a caricature of the our Liturgies. How many “average Greek, Russian, or Coptic” churches has this author been to I have to wonder.
What can he be referring to? I can only construe he really does not understand the Divine Liturgy at all. Even when in a community where the vernacular of the Liturgy isn’t my own, to speak of the level of participation as minimal is to me simply a reflection of his own lack of understanding of the Liturgy.Very true, but I think it’s important to remember that the point is that everyone faces the same direction in prayer. Even in the early *occidented *(as opposed to oriented) Roman basilicas, during the Canon the congregation turned to face East. This means that they had their backs to the Blessed Sacrament and the action taking place on the altar. The point was, however, that they all prayed together facing the same direction.
No, it does not otherwise we would still use leavened bread, would not chant the Agnus Dei, would still use milk and honey and water after baptisms, etc. Sometimes, however, traditions are rooted in our identity, who we are as a chosen people:
"For as the lightning *comes from the east* and shines as far as the west, so will
be the *coming of the Son of man.* " Matt 24:27Forced participation is an interesting term. It makes me think he must be referring to something quite specific in the OF of the Latin rite. Did he say?Well said. His description is such a caricature of the our Liturgies. How many “average Greek, Russian, or Coptic” churches has this author been to I have to wonder.
His response to you, "May 29th, 2010 | 2:46pm I have to stand by my characterization of Eastern Christian worship mentioned in this essay. I have been to services at many Russian, Greek, and other Eastern Christian churches, and the level of “forced participation” is quite minimal. "
“forced participation”?
The idea that “The extent of the congregation’s participation is limited to lighting a candle, making frequents signs of the cross, and singing at selected times.” is ludicrous.
This is just an observation: Wouldn’t it be better then in this day and age for the priest to be facing a different direction? Couldn’t there be a chance that the idea of everyone facing the same way could diminish the priest to just another person praying? You see enough threads here on CAF decrying the blurred lines between the laity and the clergy, but for a badly catechized Catholic (and let’s face it, there’s a lot of them) wouldn’t that do just that?