I am creating this thread in order to discuss the relative importance of ad orientem worship in the liturgical "reform of the reform," and what its place is/should be. This thread contains a very nice catechetical tool to use with congregations.

When discussing the liturgical "problems" of the post-Vatican II American liturgy, me and Catholic friends of mine are often first to decry the move to versus populum worship, before pretty much anything else. Orthodox friends of mine, however, while they do not think versus populum is a good thing, don't think it's such a big deal compared to other things, such as layperson EMCs, modern iconoclasm, loss of reverence, etc. However, my personal opinion is that of any one major change that happened in the wake of Vatican II, versus populum celebration of the Mass best symbolizes the attitude of the reform (the unofficial reform that we're all fighting here) and everything that's wrong with it.

An Orthodox friend of mine once attended a Catholic Mass where behind the celebrant, where the tabernacle usually stands, the congregation had installed mirrors. Mirrors, so they could see one another during Mass. The turned the Mass from something about God into something about them. Versus populum, making the priest face you so you can see each other and "talk to" each other, makes you forget that you rarely talk to the priest during Mass--just "et cum spiritu tuo" sometimes--but rather you're all talking to God together.

Because versus populum seems to represent the idea that "the Mass is about us": about our preferences, liturgically and musically, about our community, etc.--that's why I think it's "such a big deal."

Now, I can understand why the proponents of versus populum support it. I have talked to older ladies who lived through V2, and I listened to what they had to say about it. In their experience as laypeople, the Mass was something the priest did without them. They prayed their rosary or did something else while the priest went about his business; then he gave them communion and they went back to non-participation again. They couldn't hear what he was saying, most of the time, and even if they could hear him, they couldn't understand it, anyway. They were even explicitly told that they were merely bystanders, spectators, and not actually part of the Mass. When the priest turned around to face them, and spoke out loud in English to them, they felt like they were actually part of the Mass all of a sudden. They could participate, they could pray with the priest and with each other, together! However, I think this same effect could have been achieved by merely translating the Canon and other parts of the Mass into vernacular and making them audible, keeping the priest facing east so that the people could "join in" on the prayer while keeping the focus on God--represented by the tabernacle, altar, and liturgical east--instead of turning the priest around in order for them to focus more on the priest's personality as a celebrant.

V2 original reform thought the same thing, because the rubrics still assume ad orientem.

Anyway, while I understand how these women feel, they were ill-instructed in the faith is the problem, and versus populum actually swung the pendulum in the opposite direction--instead of correcting the problem of Masses irrelevant to laypeople, it overcorrected into something even worse: Masses meant to entertain the laypeople. At least the silent, incomprehensible Latin Mass evoked a sense of the sacred transcendence of God. Entertainment-oriented Masses don't teach very much about God at all (in their text, perhaps they do; but in their attitude/atmosphere, not so much).

However, I believe my generation (20-somethings) isn't as entrenched in support of versus populum as people think. A Catholic friend of mine, liturgically minded like we are here, was once talking to a group of praise-and-worship Catholics: the kind who are extremely pious in that they will attend daily Mass and pray often, but misdirected in their piety by playing electric guitars at Mass and passing out communion as EMCs. He was talking about ad orientem and they didn't know what he was talking about; they had never heard of it before. He explained it very simply: ad orientem is when the priest stands on the same side of the altar as everyone else, and leads them in prayer to God by facing the tabernacle/liturgical east. He told them that that was how the early church did it through the ages, and only recently was it changed. The p&w crowd's response? "Awesome! Why don't we do that anymore?!"

Just wondering how you guys rate this particular liturgical innovation in importance. I personally put it in the top five, at least.