www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Latin Rite, Facing East re: Liturgy of the Eucharist

Dear Memo,

Again, I must say that it is not only the altar the priest faces as you have indicated, but in the East the Sanctuary where God IS, and in the west the Tabernacle and the Crucifix. And He does not mean to turn his back on the faithful, but to LEAD the Faithful in prayer and to intercede for the faithful as only an ordained priest can do. The faithful, in turn, are united in a common posture with the priest and face God together with the priest.

Theologically, Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Sacred Eucharist, whereas he is present only mystically in the ones gathered in His Name. The former is indeed greater than the latter. Proof of this is as follows; Christ still remains present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Tabernacle when all the congregation disperse. Whereas Christ can no longer be mystically present when the congregation disperses. Thus, Christ is permanantly present in the Sacred Eucharist(unless of course He is consumed), whereas His presence in the congregation is dependant upon them being gathered.

The tabernacle is quite literally, in every possible respect, the VERY THRONE of the Living Christ HIMSELF. It is the continuation of the Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament, upon which God literally sat. And, as the Old Testament indicates, God was so present there that men were literally struck dead for even touching the Ark.

But people are members of Christ, to a greater or lesser extent, insofar as they are united to His Will. And in my case, I cannot claim that I am perfectly united to His Will. In truth, no one can. Thus, Christ can not fully dwell within His members in the same manner as the Blessed Sacrament.

Therefore, the priest should face the The Sanctuary/Tabernacle.

Hi,

No. God is everywhere.

Provided you have a crucifix and the Tabernacle centered, right behind the altar.

This is not the case in many new and/or renovated Catholic Churches.

In my parish, we would have to ask God to go sit on the presider's chair and stay there, because that is the only thing we have right behind the altar.

Agree, but this is something the West forgot, and we forgot it WAY before the liturgical reforms of 35 years agon. We need to re-learn this, yes, but meanwhile the symbol is meaningless and therefore, useless.

Yes, but the two "presences" are a manifestation of the same reality and, really, actually, one cannot be understood without the other, both ways. Christ would not be present in the Eucharist, if there was not a Christian Community, however small, there to celebrate the mystery. The Community, on the other hand, would not survive in this World without the Bread of Life.

And no, please do not go into the topic of private Masses, they are mostly a Western thing, and they are completely unrelated to what we are discussing here.

Your assumption is wrong, your proof is invalid.

You are assuming Christ is not really present in the individual human being. But again, the words of the Gospel are very clear in identifying Christ with "the least of these", and not in a generic, poetic way, but in a real and concrete way.

Again, God is NOT more present on a wall than in the heart of one of His Children.

Besides, I thought we already agreed that the priest is not facing the people, but rather, the altar and, from his position, when he faces the altar, he happens to face the people as well.


Yes, just as your heart is. The same Christ who goes into the tabernacle to make it holy, goes into your very being each time you receive the Eucharist.

The moment Our Lord gave His Life for our ransom, the veil of the temple was torn in two, giving God full access to His People, and His People full access to God.

That is not for you to judge.

Good. I take your word at face value.

Neither can I.

Point?

That is not for you to judge.

Not in the same manner, agree, but why do you think His mystical presence in us is less important than His sacramental presence in the tabernacle.

After all, Christ is Christ.

It doesn't follow.

During the celebration of the Eucharist, the same Eucharist that might be reserved in the tabernacle... or not, a tabernacle that might be behind the altar... or not... IS RIGHT THERE ON THE ALTAR.

As long as the priest is facing the altar, he's doing what he's supposed to do.

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Memo,

I could not agree with you more. And Christ is present during the liturgy in two other ways: in the Word proclaimed and in the priest, in persona Christi.

Peace,

Charles

Thus posted byzanTN:
> ]The symbolism of facing the east is because that
> is the direction from which Christ is supposed to
> return.

Which is also why we bury our dead facing east!

Wishing you and all a joyous Pascha,
Photius, Reader and sinner

Thus posted Ung-Certez:
> That reminds me of the Greek Orthodox parish in
> East Pittsburgh, Pa. One enters into the
> church by walking around the church to a side
> entrance. The back of the church actually
> faces the street, where one usually finds the
> main entrace of a church. The church was built
> this way to ensure the altar is facing east!

A Greek parish that I was involved with as a mission, when it finally acquired a church building, bought a former Protestant church that faced west, so its entrance was at the east end near the street. What we did was to add a room with an apse between the east wall and the street, and the former east wall became the iconostasis, and an entrance was cut into the west wall, so one enter where the stage, or whatever, of the Protestants was.

Wishing you and all a joyous Pascha,
Photius, Reader and sinner

Memo,

God is not everywhere physically. The very fact of His omnipresence necessitates (that is from the philosophical perspective) His immateriality. But in the Tabernacle, Christ is physically present. Therefore, it is legitimate to orient the entire Mass to the grand Mystery of the Real Presence. It is impossible to orient worship toward 'everywhere'.

My proof of the importance of the Real Presence over the Mystical presence in the congregation is in no way invalid. Isn't it true that Christ remains present, Body, Blood Soul and Divinity in the tabernacles of both East and West even if no congregation is there? You wouldn't deny that would you?
I am not assuming that Christ is not 'really' or 'concretely' present in the faithful. I only assert that Christ is only mystically present there. Whereas in the Eucharist Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. IE He is CORPOREALLY present.
To give an analogy; when Christ tells Nathaniel that He saw him under a fig tree in the Gospel of John 1...when Christ saw Nathaniel, he was not corporeally present to Nathaniel, but He was indeed present to him.

The same Christ is present in both the Eucharist and the faithful, but Christ is more fully present in the Eucharist. IE, he is corporeally present there. When the faithful recieve Christ, the accidents of bread and wine are digested, and cease to contain the substance of the divinity. Therefore, the physical presence of Christ ceases. Whereas His mystical presence continues.

Yes but this does not change the fact that the New Covenant was foreshadowed in the Old. And the Ark of the Covenant is an obvious type of the Blessed Sacrament. Men were struck dead for even touching the Ark of the Covenant. How holy then is the Blessed Sacrament if the Old Covenant is inferior to the New?

I am not judging, I am simply showing that my points are in keeping with sound Catholic Doctrine. And it is Catholic Doctrine that all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. No human being is sinless, save for the Immaculate Virgin. Therefore, no human being has been perfectly united to the Will of God.

The rest of your points are too western too enter into. Suffice it to say that the Tabernacle should be in the very center of every church.


To put this debate in the larger context of the entire thread, it is my opinion that all churches, priests and congregations should face east. But we are in a difficult position if the Church itself doesn't.
I say that the priest should face the Sanctuary/Tabernacle if the church is facing an improper direction.

Is has always been Catholic Doctrine
that the Eucharist is the REAL PRESENCE
of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and
Divinity. The attempt to somehow equate
this REAL PRESENCE to the "mystical"
presence of Christ in the "word" and the
"assembly" is one of the most widespread
modernist heresies in the post-conciliar
Western Church. It has reached the point
where certain American bishops teach that
the Consecration cannot occur unless the
"assembly" is present.

Good morning Antonius.

If you`re going to throw around the heresy word, present proof. First, which "certain American bishops" teach as you allege. Have you reported this to the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities? Do not charge heresy unless you can back it up with facts.

You stated: "The attempt to somehow equate
this REAL PRESENCE to the "mystical"
presence of Christ in the "word" and the
"assembly" is one of the most widespread
modernist heresies in the post-conciliar
Western Church."

Which competent ecclesiastical authority has called what you state above as a heresy? If this is your personal opinion, state that.

I wish you peace,

Charles

I did not feel it appropriate to comment on this thread because as a Latin Catholic I thought it inappropriate to discuss our business on a Byzantine forum. However, this thread has crossed the line between a purely Latin concern to being one for the whole Church: Whether or not Jesus is more present in the Eucharist than in anything else. Thus in the spirit of paragraph 4 of Vatican II's constition on the liturgy 'Sancrosanctum Concilium', which reads:

I will now say my piece, or rather quote it from 'Sancrosanctum Concilium' highlighting the important parts:

Also:

Sincerely
Myles

References from 'Sancrosanctum Concilum' as found in the English version of www.vatican.va-- [vatican.va--]
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_..._19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

To underscore the teaching of the Church regarding the presence of Christ, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council proclaimed:

Good morning Father Deacon John.

Thanks for your post. It is exactly to the point. Christ is present in so many ways - so many important ways - and the Council Fathers provide a balanced view of His presence.

I do think that this thread has lost its relevance to the Faith & Worhsip section and that the topic would be more appropriate in the Town Hall section. Given its title, it should have been there from the beginning.

Speaking as one whose ritual Church is that of Rome, I am really puzzled at the proliferation of Roman or Latin topics on this forum which are almost always begun by members of the Roman Church and, almost always, the threads are critical of this or that practice or alleged practice in the Roman Church. They invariably spiral downwards in tone and substance.

Even when these threads appear in the Town Hall section, I do not believe that most of them are at all appropriate to the Byzantine Forum.

Since my youth (many, many years ago), I have had an interest in and appreciation for the various Eastern sui iuris Churches. I came to this Forum to enrich my spiritual life and to expand my knowledge of my brothers and sisters, both Orthodox and Catholic.

Thanks again, Father Deacon John.

Peace,

Charles

Dear Charles,

I respect your views on RC talk on the Forum.

If I bash Rome, please tell me.

Us Latins should not take over the Forum with Latin issues. But I do think that the Forum does allow for cross training between Eastern and Western Traditions.

Our moderators are good at saying when we go overboard from a healthy East-West balance.

Peace,

Paul

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your kind words. I agree, there is a place for East-West cross training (perhaps continuing education or, at times, primary education?) on the Forum.

I don`t recall you ever bashing Rome - or bashing anyone or anything at all.

For me, the most important posture at liturgy is that of my soul. If that`s proper (not perfect - not me, not in this life), everything else will fall into place.

Have a great day.

Peace,

Charles

Two thoughts:

1. Western thought re: the various presences

I think perhaps what some are objecting to is something which is a problem in many post-conciliar Latin rite churches (i.e. in priests, pastoral staff, laity) which is making all such presences the same as the Real Presence of Christ Blessed Sacrament without the kind of distinction and prominence given it by the council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and in other documents of the Church prior to that Council.

Besides being a problem of theological accuracy, it can also lead individuals to have a dimiuished or more protestant understanding of the Blessed Sacrament. In some cases you could even question whether it is a subtle attack on that doctrine by at least some theologians and pastors. Only God knows that for certain of course, but we do have to guard against it and at least make the necessary qualifications.

2. Eastern and Western: direction of liturgical prayer

There are a couple of points worth pondering which make for a strong case for the priest and people facing the same direction.

One is that which some have already said, when the priest and people face the same direction it is arguably a more "communal" type of posture as it isn't a matter of one individual facing us and talking at us, but rather one from amongst the same fold of Christ, the priest, together with the faithful offering worship to the Holy Trinity, praying together "our Father..." etc.

A second consideration is the traditional orientation does help to emphasize that our worship is first and foremost directed to the Holy Trinity (yes it has a communal dimension as well, but the worship of God comes first and foremost); insofar as it does that, it helps emphasize the sacrificial dimension of the liturgy which has been quite forgotten in many parishes, which of course leads to a distorted understanding of the sacred liturgy by virtue of its incompleteness.

A third consideration is the traditional orientation helps prevent the "personality priest" syndrome where the priest starts to be more concerned with how they are dialoging with the people; how much flare he brings to it, the jokes and humour he brings, how dynamic he is at the altar, etc. -- which often results in abuses such as changes in the liturgical text which aren't approved, or violations of the rubrics. This can of course be avoided even with the current versus populum orientation, but it often isn't and certainly the traditional orientation by its very nature helps prevent that style of priestly celebration. This is more or less a prudential consideration.

Finally, regardless of the positioning of the tabernacle in a church there are the considerations of the eschatological and cosmological significance of this common direction (liturgical eastwardness). These have symbolic significations and likewise root us back to our patristic forefathers and also Judaism which also had a sense of sacred direction in liturgical prayer.

It's worth adding a final comment as well. While the Church is known for its diversity of rites, and this is a good thing insofar as it is legitimate diversity, there is also something to be said for its unity in certain theological understandings and the practises that follow from them. I do find it a rather big shame that this change in orientation does represent a further break and difference between East and West. The common direction and even basic commonalities in sanctuary arrangement in terms of the altar did make a remarkable testament to the unity of belief and Faith.

Ultimately, these considerations are prudential in nature. They consider what attitudes or problems may be more easily spread given this kind of liturgical change, or what abuses may be more prone. They could be avoided either way, I admit that freely. There is something to be said for the historical understanding as well as the unitive aspect between East and West.

The issue for me becomes one like the filioque matter. While I accept with faith that there is no theological error in the "filioque" being added to the Nicene Creed (I know that many Orthodox will disagree with that statement) I do hope and pray that the Roman Church will go back to using the original Nicene Creed sans the filioque for the sake of unity and the elimination of a stumbling block, as well as out of principle of returning to the actual creed as written by the Council of Nicea. Likewise, while I accept there is no theological error in versus populum celebration in and of itself, for prudential reasons (to help re-emphasize those theological points, and put in place a method which perhaps makes it more difficult for such issues to occur as I mention above), and for unitive reasons between East and West, I pray it will be restored, or at least find a place in each parish for one Sunday Mass.

Our current Pope has many insightful reflections on this subject in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy. I would again recommend Lang's book, Turning Towards the Lord, for a more cogent consideration of the matter, rather than my mere anecdotal reflections.

Good points Shawn, the main idea I was looking at was when we address God the Father especially during the Liturgy of the Eucharist,as it was the norm for centuries and still is in the Eastern practice, also I agree that the Trinity is present everywhere, but this query is confined to one point.

Forgive me when I ask athe simple question,when we address someone, don't we usally face them ?

I again just heard the Holy Father discuss this issue when he was a Cardinal in 2003, it is available in audio at Ewtn.

I am surely not afraid or to discuss items of faith and worship as some of us appear to be. And yes I have already discussed this on RC forums, but this was asked here for my Eastern brethern's thoughts.

Yes it is a important part of the East & West practice of worship.

Let's be and keep it real my brothers and sisters in Christ.

james

ps - I'm beginning to question why even bothering with these forums if nothing can be gained.