What does that real "action" or "presence" have to do with the congregation?

What is the spiritual significance of the priest's orientation toward the people, rather than the tabernacle?

Should we face eachother, or the Lord?

I am (too often) naive and under-educated about these matters, so if you have answers to the questions above, I would be very grateful to read them.

As am I.

Thanks, Liam. Very interesting.

I heartily concur with Mark's assessment.

Although having one's back to the tabernacle is part of it, the main point that I see in the discussion is being talked to vs prayed with/for. When facing the people, there is a strong tenancy to begin a dialog, and in ad orientem, it is more clear that we are being lead in prayer.

The main problem as I see it when priest faces the people is that he naturally becomes a performer, an actor in front of a TV camera or live audience. He becomes the centre stage because he becomes that amiable MC of the Price is Right. When the priest faces the east, not only is he facing the abode of the Lord, but all those Saints enjoying the beatific vision there. Of course the east is a symbol, but it is a powerful one. When people on earth gather around an altar, they have formed a closed group, directing away all those who have passed before us in Faith. Clearly the latter is a product of the 60's, where everybody got together to have a jam session on the campus lawns, or warm campfire singalongs, while the traditional stance focuses totally upon the heavenly, that place which Christians aim for and which the Mass used to direct us visually and symbolically.

Still, regarding the placement of the tabernacle, a balance must be struck. "Out of sight, out of mind."

A parish church is not merely a place to celebrate Mass. it is also a place for prayer. Therefore, isn't it appropriate that the tabernacle be located in a prominent position? Note the qualifier in the "less pious" option:

"b) or even in some chapel suitable for the private adoration and prayer of the faithful and organically connected to the church and readily noticeable by the Christian faithful."

As I'm sure has been noted to death, in neither option were either of the following mentioned:

1. The requirement that Mass only be said fully facing a different direction than those assembled;
2. That it's inappropriate for the tabernacle to have a central position, for it only mentions that the tabernacle should not be on the altar and that the altar should be central.

Reading it with a hermeneutic of continuity seems to suggest a parish church organized something like the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Sacramento:

The image of the unfolding circle is also an image of heaven (consult, just for example, Dante), and the Eucharistic sacrifice is a foretaste of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in the new creation, et cet. So, it too has eschatological significance, and thus the closed-circle-as-negative argument also has its limits.

Mind you, I don't have much of a dog in this fight; I find the typical arguments over orientation tend to be more shibboleth than substantial in quality. I am just illustrating that there are no magical silver bullets to seal the deal when arguing this stuff.

MWA

I am aware of that quibbling. However, the translation is the more recent one according the dictates of Liturgicam Authenticam, for what that's worth. More importantly, there is a larger and longer context for the development, as previously noted above, and even if the translation were rendered as Fr Z et al. prefer, that would not negate that context. It's not a silver bullet, either.

It is desirable that the altar and the tabernacle be separated in order that one can walk the whole way around it (incensing the altar). The Eastern Churches all celebrate mass ad orientam, and usually with an iconoclast obscuring the view of the congregation... I don't know of any Eastern Catholics who object to this.

And the GIRM did not call for mass to be said versus populum. Nor did Sacrosanctum Concilium or any other VII documents that I have read thus far.

Moi?

Doesn't this validate NWA's "quibbling"?

But Liam . . .

GIRM #299 is used as a silver bullet by those who wish to exclude ad orientem altogether. So it seems important to understand it correctly. (not to quibble or anything . . . )

And given that the mass has been celebrated for a very long time ad orientem, "turning the altar around" was much more of an ideological than a theological statement (and turning them back is seen in much the same light by those who oppose it, unfortunately). The attempts to justify it on a theological basis largely after the fact strike me as a bit tendentious, to say the least.

The difference between Mass vs. concert re: facing of the priest/choir is important in this discussion. In a concert, the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle and must be accorded every due respect, especially since the focus of the event is the choir, not Body and Blood.

The focus of the Mass is the Body and Blood, but more specifically the sacrifice on the altar. This is why Eucharistic adoration must be suspended when the Mass is being celebrated. This is why the priest can "get away with" turning his back on the tabernacle. Furthermore, the Sacrifice of the Mass is being offered to God the Father (note that every single Eucharistic Prayer, with the exception of on Corpus Christi, is addressed to the Father).

All that said, I am still in favor of ad orientem worship since it makes clear the relationship between priest and laity, and the complete theology of their roles at Mass. It also takes away from the distracting "conversational" tone that can take place at Mass. The orientation, however, is not related at all to the placement of the tabernacle.

Brace yourselves. This is a long piece that I wrote in my own blog about the topic at hand:

The subject of Ad Orientem seems to hit the blogosphere and different liturgical forums every January, especially when the Holy Father employs this posture when celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Sistine Chapel. This time around, there's a twist. Evidently, a forum member from a Catholic website expressed concern that a priest at a parish he visited used this particular posture.




"My family and I went to a different parish this weekend...When we walked in, I noticed that the Altar was set up 'backward'. The priest 'said' Mass with his back to us. When I say that the priest 'said Mass', I mean he literally said it. No emotion. No inflection. Very matter of fact. He walked in from the Sacristy and walked out through the Sacristy. He used no Altar servers. No extraordinary Eucharistic ministers (Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion). He did not even offer the Cup to us. The whole thing felt not like a prayer or a celebration, but more like a performance. And not only a performance, but a performance from which we were all deliberately and explicity excluded. It was quite jarring and cold...

...(W)hy such a drastic (and may I say rigid) change? ...Are such changes authorized?"
Having read the post, I shuddered. Subsequent replies appeared to me to not have an understanding of the actual rubric and the role of the bishop in all of this. Here is an example:

"Of course a bishop may direct the priest how to celebrate the Liturgy since the Liturgy in the diocese is under the authority of the bishop."

Still others wondered why this posture even exists in this day and age, as they seem to think that it is a "throwback" to preconciliar days. "Vatican II changed all of that" appears to be the consensus among these folks. However, a reading of the documents, namely the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and the actual rubrics do not indicate this to be so.

Unfortunately, for better or for worse, the Second Vatican Council is blamed/credited for a lot of what has transpired insofar as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is concerned. Did Vatican II really say that we could no longer kneel in order to receive Holy Communion? Did the Council Fathers mean for the Mass to be stripped of Latin? Is it a liturgical abuse for a priest to "turn his back" on the people? The answer to these questions is a resounding "NO".

Over a year ago, I wrote on the subject, quoting both Pope Benedict XVI and Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, OP, author of the excellent book Turning Towards the Lord. Both the Holy Father (who, incidentally, wrote the foreword to Fr. Lang's book) and Fr. Lang point out that Ad Orientem is completely legitimate. Furthermore, the rubrics assume that this would be the posture taken by the celebrant, especially during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If versus populum (facing the people) were the set mode, then why would there be specific references in the rubrics indicating when the celebrant is to face the people?

Even the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments weighed in on the matter. In 2002, the CDWDS wrote that:

"Prot. No 2036/00/L

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in no. 299 of the Instituto Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which, during the Eucharistic liturgy, the position of the priest versus absidem [facing towards the apse] is to be excluded.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

Negative, and in accordance with the following explanation.

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account.

It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum [detached from the wall] and to the celebration versus populum [toward the people]. The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc. It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.

However, whatever may be the position of the celebrating priest, it is clear that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered to the one and triune God, and that the principal, eternal, and high priest is Jesus Christ, who acts through the ministry of the priest who visibly presides as His instrument. The liturgical assembly participates in the celebration in virtue of the common priesthood of the faithful which requires the ministry of the ordained priest to be exercised in the Eucharistic Synaxis. The physical position, especially with respect to the communication among the various members of the assembly, must be distinguished from the interior spiritual orientation of all. It would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is a legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesus Christum [toward God through Jesus Christ], as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned versus Deum [towards God] as its first spiritual movement.

It appears that the ancient tradition, though not without exception, was that the celebrant and the praying community were turned versus orientem [toward the East], the direction from which the Light which is Christ comes. It is not unusual for ancient churches to be "oriented" so that the priest and the people were turned versus orientem during public prayer.

It may be that when there were problems of space, or of some other kind, the apse represented the East symbolically. Today the expression versus orientem often means versus apsidem, and in speaking of versus populum it is not the west but rather the community present that is meant.

In the ancient architecture of churches, the place of the Bishop or the celebrating priest was in the center of the apse where, seated and turned toward the community, the proclamation of the readings was listened to. Now this presidential place was not ascribed to the human person of the bishop or the priest, nor to his intellectual gifts and not even to his personal holiness, but to his role as an instrument of the invisible Pontiff, who is the Lord Jesus.

When it is a question of ancient churches, or of great artistic value, it is appropriate, moreover, to keep in mind civil legislation regarding changes or renovations. Adding another altar may not always be a worthy solution.

There is no need to give excessive importance to elements that have changed throughout the centuries. What always remains is the event celebrated in the liturgy: this is manifested through rites, signs, symbols and words that express various aspects of the mystery without, however, exhausting it, because it transcends them. Taking a rigid position and absolutizing it could become a rejection of some aspect of the truth which merits respect and acceptance."

Thus, as we can see, there is no liturgical abuse if the priest chooses to celebrate Mass Ad Orientem. When the question was brought up at a liturgical conference concerning whether or not a bishop could put a stop to Ad Orientem, the response was in the negative.