"When we study the most ancient liturgical practices of the Church...

... we find that the priest and the people faced in the same direction, usually toward the east, in the expectation that when Christ returns, He will return “from the east.” At Mass, the Church keeps vigil, waiting for that return. This single position is called ad orientem, which simply means “toward the east.”

That is from a column by Bishop Edward Slattery of the diocese of Tulsa in the September 2009 issue of The Eastern Oklahoma Catholic (PDF format; ht: New Liturgical Movement), announcing the following:

Even before his election as the successor to St. Peter, Pope Benedict has been urging us to draw upon the ancient liturgical practice of the Church to recover a more authentic Catholic worship. For that reason, I have restored the venerable ad orientem position when I celebrate Mass at the Cathedral. This change ought not to be misconstrued as the Bishop “turning his back on the faithful,” as if I am being inconsiderate or hostile. Such an interpretation misses the point that, by facing in the same direction, the posture of the celebrant and the congregation make explicit the fact that we journey together to God. Priest and people are on this pilgrimage together.

Of course, most Eastern/Byzantine Catholic churches continue to follow and adhere to the ancient practice of ad orientem, as Fr. Uwe Michael Lang notes in Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (Ignatius Press, 2009; 2nd edition), pointing out that "the Congregation for the Oriental Churches declared in its instruction Il Padre incomprensibile of 6 January 1996 that the ancient tradition of praying toward the east has a profound liturgical and spiritual value and must be preserved in the Eastern rites" (p. 104). Back in July of 2007, writing about Summorum Pontificum as someone who has been in a Byzantine Catholic parish for ten (now twelve) years, I said:

Having a certain "Eastern" perspective can be helpful. For example, I have to laugh a bit when I read or hear some Catholics insist that having the priest "turn his back to the people" is a bad or bizarre thing, as though it will somehow create a sort of dark and emotionally-draining chasm between the priest and the people. It's interesting to hear the reactions of Western-rite Catholics after they go to Divine Liturgy for the first time; they are usually both mildly confused and extremely moved. And more than once such folks have said, in essence, "Now I understand far better why the priest does that (that is, stands ad orientem)."

Now, after all these years "in the East," whenever I am at a Novus Ordo Mass, I am a bit—maybe even more than a bit—uncomfortable with the priest facing the people (versus populum). Not that my pastor doesn't ever face the people; on the contrary, he faces the people at several different places in the Divine Liturgy, often to bless them, which takes place several times. But during the prayers he faces east with the people. And it not only not bothersome, it makes complete sense, both theologically and liturgically.

Here are a couple of quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger about ad orientem. First, from the third chapter of The Spirit of the Liturgy:

Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the East is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again. Here both the fidelity to the gift already bestowed and the dynamism of going forward are given equal expression.

The Orientation of Worship and God’s Omnipresence

Modern man has little understanding of this "orientation." Judaism and Islam, now as in the past, take it for granted that we should pray towards the central place of revelation, to the God who has revealed himself to us, in the manner and in the place in which he revealed himself. By contrast, in the Western world, an abstract way of thinking, which in a certain way is the fruit of Christian influence, has become dominant. God is spiritual, and God is everywhere: does that not mean that prayer is not tied to a particular place or direction?

Now we can indeed pray everywhere, and God is accessible to us everywhere. This idea of the universality of God is a consequence of Christian universality, of the Christian’s looking up to God above all gods, the God who embraces the cosmos and is more intimate to us than we are to ourselves. But our knowledge of this universality is the fruit of revelation: God has shown himself to us. Only for this reason do we know him, only for this reason can we confidently pray to him everywhere. And precisely for this reason is it appropriate, now as in the past, that we should express in Christian prayer our turning to the God who has revealed himself to us. Just as God assumed a body and entered the time and space of this world, so it is appropriate to prayer – at least to communal liturgical prayer – that our speaking to God should be "incarnational," that it should be Christological, turned through the incarnate Word to the Triune God. The cosmic symbol of the rising sun expresses the universality of God above all particular places and yet maintains the concreteness of divine revelation. Our praying is thus inserted into the procession of the nations to God.

<snip>

On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer.

And from his Foreword to U.M. Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (2nd edition):

There is nothing in the Council text about turning altars towards the people; that point is raised only in postconciliar instructions. The most important directive is found in paragraph 262 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, the General Instruction of the new Roman Missal, issued in 1969. That says, 'It is better for the main altar to be constructed away from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people (versus populum).' The General Instruction of the Missal issued in 2002 retained this text unaltered except for the addition of the subordinate clause, 'which is desirable wherever possible'. This was taken in many quarters as hardening the 1969 text to mean that there was now a general obligation to set up altars facing the people 'wherever possible'.

This interpretation, however, was rejected by the Congregation for Divine Worship on 25 September 2000, when it declared that the word 'expedit' ('is desirable') did not imply an obligation but only made a suggestion. The physical orientation, the Congregation says, must be distinguished from the spiritual. Even if a priest celebrates versus populum, he should always be oriented versus Deum per Iesum Christum (towards God through Jesus Christ). Rites, signs, symbols, and words can never exhaust the inner reality of the mystery of salvation. For this reason the Congregation warns against one-sided and rigid positions in this debate.

Comments

[Dan Deeny]

Does this mean that people in New York will face Jerusalem, where Jesus died, and people in Japan will face California where ... other events happened? And what about people in Russia, or South Africa? Do Christians believe that Jesus will return at a specific place?

[David K. Monroe]

Despite being a non-Catholic Christian, I am entirely perplexed that this idea of the celebrant facing away from the congregation during the Mass has ever caused so much controversy. How ignorant does one have to be to feel personally offended at the priest facing away from the congregation? How can one consider it "inconsiderate" if one has even a modicum of understanding about the reason for the posture and what it signifies? Is there any truly reasonable argument that supports this interpretation?

[Augustine]

However, the same Card. Ratzinger stated that it's not sensible to change the priest's position anymore. Rather, he suggested a crucifix on the altar to Whom both the priest and the faithful look to at Consecration.

History apart, it's sad to see faithful people suggesting to do this act of violence on those who've never known another liturgy and are pretty happy about it when it's said reverently as it should always be.

In my case, it's not that I miss the priest's face, but rather the Lord's face on His Body and Blood.

[TJM]

I think most people are not satisfied with the reformed Liturgy and they have voted with their feet. The change to versus populum from ad orientem was based on faulty scholarship in the 1960s and has had deleterious consequences, the most annoying being the "Entertainer Priest" phenomenon.

[Ted Krasnicki]

David Monroe:
Ratzinger does not think that it "is not sensible" to change back to the traditional and apostolic orientation; he has fears with creating another liturgical revolution that, as one commentator above mentioned, people will again make a statement with their feet. The large crucifix on the ad populum altar is only a temporary and gradual step. The way the New Mass was implemented at the parish level after Vatican II was brutal Ratzinger says somewhere. One must not repeat that mistake. The Church is deeply divided and any changes must be implemented with great caution so as not to divide any further. I must also say that today way too many churchgoers and priests are poorly educated and highly influenced by the surrounding secular culture and this affects among other things their preference for the conference-table style worship. But brick by brick, very slowly, the sacred can be restored. All this will take quite some time.

[Jim Ryland]

As a church musician that grew up in the pre-Vatican II church and one who has also served many Eastern and high Anglican parishes, ad orientem seems the norm with good reason. The celebrant does not remain turned away from the congregation but turns to them at many places in the Mass for blessings and, certainly, for the homily.

It will be interesting to see how the logistics are handled since many older chancels have been altered (no pun intended) and newer structures are without a "high altar", completely.

Jim Ryland

[David Deavel]

"In my case, it's not that I miss the priest's face, but rather the Lord's face on His Body and Blood."

I don't know what this means.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

One has to endure helpless amazement while reading how Catholics face reformed Liturgy that is chaotic and diverse depending what Diocese you belong to. For as long as Catholics feel deprived of the sacred inner element of the Eucharist, the Mass will continue to be changed and deformed.
The Magisterium cannot and should not be processed as trickledown anything.

[Augustine]

David,

I meant that I don't care about any communal aspect of the priest turned towards the faithful, but I do care about witnessing the miracle of Transubstantiation at the moment of consecration.

HTH

[Ashley Collins]

I grew up in an old small parish where there was not much in regards to statuary and such and the priest faced the people. Then one day, I attended Mass at St. Michael the Archangel in Chicago. This parish had a 10 story piece of architecture representing (to me) Heaven that had saints in every nook and cranny with the Tabernacle in the the center on the bottom. The priest did not face the tabernacle during Mass but it made me understand even more the significance to the facing the other way. I am not sure if Churches these days are built in order to face the east, but since attending this Mass, I don't see the eastern orientation as significant. Rather, I see the priest facing the tabernacle and therefore Christ as a member of the flock on earth and truly representing us and offering the sacrifice on our (the laity's) behalf toward Heaven. I will never forget the picture in my old Baltimore Catechism of the priest facing the east and a flame representing our love of God and our worship of Him FLOWING from us and up through the priest toward Christ. I say, let's turn that priest back around.

[Bender]

The priest no more "faces the people" than the priest "turns his back on the people."

Properly understood, the priest and the people face the same direction -- toward the altar. Simply because they are on opposite sides of the altar does not convert that to facing each other. Rather, they each face the altar, which is appropriately the center of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And, as an alter Christus, acting in persona Christi it is proper that the priest should be on the opposite side of the altar, so that the people can look this "other Christ" in the face, rather than being on the same side with everyone facing in the same geographical direction with the Lord being set apart over, as if the priest himself were not an other Christ, but was merely a representative of the people, as in Jewish times.

[Rich Leonardi]

Bender,

In your comment you neglect to address several of the negative effects of versus populum that Bishop Slattery describes: (1) the lack of an apostolic or historic origin, (2) its overemphasis on the personality (and person) of the priest, and (3) the impression it conveys of a conversation about God rather than a worship of Him. Moreover, no one in the first twenty centuries of the Church thought that ad orientem insufficiently emphasized the priest's role as alter Christus.

Carl,

Thank you for putting this post together. I just purchased Fr. Lang's book and used some of your material for a pre-recording of my next segment for the Son Rise Morning Show. It will air at 7:35 am this Monday during the "national hour."

[Mark Brumley]

Properly understood, the priest and the people face the same direction -- toward the altar. Simply because they are on opposite sides of the altar does not convert that to facing each other. Rather, they each face the altar, which is appropriately the center of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

No, actually the people and the priest face each other. Watch what happens at most Masses. They're not mutually "facing the altar"; they facing each other most of the time. They direct their attention to each other most of the time, at least as far as their bodily orientation is concerned.

And, as an alter Christus, acting in persona Christi it is proper that the priest should be on the opposite side of the altar, so that the people can look this "other Christ" in the face, rather than being on the same side with everyone facing in the same geographical direction with the Lord being set apart over, as if the priest himself were not an other Christ, but was merely a representative of the people, as in Jewish times.

In the action of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the primary emphasis is not on the people looking Christ in the "face" (I thought they weren't looking at the priest but the altar?) but the people with and thru the ministerial priest, and therefore in Christ, "facing" the Father and offering the sacrifice of Christ to him. In the sacrificail action Christ is representative of the people. He can be so because he is the Father's Son sent into the world and as head of the Church. But in the action of drawing the Church into his self-gift to the Father, he represents us. The ministerial priest is an icon of Christ in that action of representing his body, the Church, to the Father. That action is not denied or completely lost in "facing the people", but it is obscured and tends to reinforce the image of the Eucharistic sacrifice as primarily a conservsation between the priest and the people. Ad orientem is a way of making clearer the fact that the Eucharistic sacrifice is the offering of Christ to the Father into which the people enter through and with the ministerial priest.

The "facing the peope" posture has some benefits. Greater clarity re: the nature of the Eucharistic action as that of Christ directed to the Father as expressed through orientation in liturgical action is not one of them.

[Jackson]

"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."

-Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to the French edition of Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background

[LJ]

Does this mean that people in New York will face Jerusalem, where Jesus died, and people in Japan will face California where ... other events happened? And what about people in Russia, or South Africa? Do Christians believe that Jesus will return at a specific place? - Dan Deeny

Facing east means facing "liturgical east." Some Churches are constructed with a north/south orientation, etc.

[Mark Brumley]

Does this mean that people in New York will face Jerusalem, where Jesus died, and people in Japan will face California where ... other events happened? And what about people in Russia, or South Africa? Do Christians believe that Jesus will return at a specific place?

I'm sorry, Dan, but the point or points of your questions elude(s) me.