Editor’s note: Here at Anglican Compass, we feature content from low church to high church, as long as it’s written with both clarity and charity. Even if you would never consider an “ad orientem” Holy Communion in your own church, I invite you to read about how and why Fr. Ben Jefferies has made the switch in his parish.
It comes as a shock to many Anglicans to find out that, prior to the 1950s, Anglicans never stood behind the altar to face the people for Holy Communion.
In fact, architecturally, it would have been impossible to get behind most altars, because almost all altars were placed up against the far wall of the sanctuary—usually the eastern wall.
[Note/UPDATE: The author recognizes the inaccuracies of these statements, and has moderated them in the comments below. He apologizes, and confesses it was not his intent to deceive]
Why east?
Well, churches have traditionally been built on an east-west axis. This was already an old tradition in the late 4th Century. The liturgical “reason why” was given by St. Basil to be:
“Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East” (On the Holy Spirit, 27.66).
One other common interpretation is that, in facing the direction of the rising sun, we recall to mind the natural symbol that the prophet Malachi speaks of as picturing Christ’s coming again, as “the sun of righteousness” (Mal 4:2).
Whatever the mystical meaning may be, the eastern orientation remains a prevalent fact of church architecture throughout the centuries. In situations where it was not possible to build a church on an east-west axis, the far wall of the sanctuary is nevertheless still referred to as the “east wall”, it being the “liturgical east” even if the compass wouldn’t say so.
Which way should we face?
In the 1950s, some liturgical scholars theorized that, in the ancient church, the celebrant would have stood behind the table, facing the people (Latin: versus populum) in a way that resembles how most Anglican priests now celebrate today.
In the wake of Vatican II, the idea caught on like wild-fire among Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Churches everywhere slid their altars out from the far wall, and priests stood behind them to celebrate Communion.
The felt gain from this new liturgical positioning was that it made the Eucharist feel more friendly and communal—the priest was not some distant figure “over there,” but was one of the people, standing in a circle, resembling a head-of-household at the head of the table. The old, east-facing way (latin: ad orientem) was sneered at, derisively referred to as “worshiping with your back to the people.” Thus, the new way became the new norm.
Now, to be clear, facing the altar vs. facing the people is certainly a secondary issue one way or another. That is, it’s one of the ritual things that the Church in every era and time has authority to determine on. It’s non-essential to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, my point is that the decision to face the people instead of the altar was not a win-win. For while something was gained, much was lost.
My personal experience.
I have been serving the Church as a priest for five years, and with every passing year, one of the things that kept nagging at my mind more and more when I was celebrating the Eucharist was: Why am I facing the people? I am praying to God the Father, why am I looking at the church? The people are supposed to be joining in my prayer to God, why are they looking at me?
Standing behind the altar, facing them, started to feel more and more odd as a posture of prayer.
In addition, with the ups and downs of life and ministry, on Sundays when I was feeling less than brilliant, I felt the strange need to emotionally rise to the occasion, to present myself in a certain way during the Eucharist. After all, all eyes were on me.
The thought occurred to me that, although this versus populum position was supposed to be less “clericalist,” I actually felt like the “spotlight” was shining very brightly on me.
If instead I were facing the cross on the altar, the people wouldn’t see my face and every expression, and I would be free to focus on the task at hand: praying.
So, I started to do a little reading on the subject of ad orientem celebration of Communion, and I learned that the claims of the liturgical scholars about what was the norm in the early church stood on very shaky and contested ground.
I learned that, at first-century tables, all the guests reclined on the same side of the table, while the servants came to the other side to serve. Thus, at the Last Supper, Jesus was shoulder to shoulder with the Apostles as he instituted Holy Communion (Da Vinci was right!).
In addition, I learned that many examples in both archaeology and liturgical texts indicate that an east-facing position was almost certainly the norm for Eucharistic celebrations in the early church. At the very least, it was the norm for the 1500 years prior to 1950, revealing that the mind of the Church clearly thought there was something to it.
I therefore decided to try out the ancient way, virtually lost since 1950, of celebrating east-facing. I pushed the altar-table up against the wall, and began to celebrate facing it. I did this as a trial period, accepting the feedback of the congregation I serve.
To my surprise, there was no sustained objection to my trying it, and indeed, it has “stuck” as a practice. It is now the norm for us at the church I serve.
The experience of celebrating Holy Communion in the east-facing position has confirmed in real life what I had read about in theory in the liturgical books.
4 reasons I now celebrate Communion facing the altar, not the people.
I would like to share four tremendous advantages that have made me a life-long fan of this return to the old-ways. I commend ad orientem to the consideration of all priests who, like me, have until now never known anything other than a versus populum celebration.
1. It is much less clericalist.
The spotlight is no longer on you, as a person, and the experience you are or are not having. Rather, you become subordinate to the role you are there to fulfill: the role of priest.
In addition, spatially and visually, it is much clearer that you the priest are merely one of the people of God, who has stepped forward about 8ft further than the congregation, to offer prayers on their behalf. Especially following a procession, to emerge from out of the midst of the congregation, standing just a few feet ahead of them, offering prayer to God — it is clear that you are not on some totally different plane of existence, that in fact, you all face God the same way, praying together.
2. It is much more prayerful.
For me, being able to look at the altar-cross, and not at the faces of the people, profoundly impacted the prayerful nature of what is supposed to be a prayer: The Eucharistic prayer.
It enabled me as a priest to focus on talking to Almighty God, rather than accidentally slipping into talking to the people, or, worse still, as if somehow the Eucharist was merely a re-enactment of the past, that I was “performing.”
Instead, I can speak in the reverent, prayerful tones that I am accustomed to speaking in when I pray to my Father in secret. I can invite the congregation to join with me in that intimate prayer.
3. It is much more priestly.
The late Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, describes a priest in his perennial classic The Christian Priest Today as an appointed one who stands before God at the Altar, with the people in his heart.
The priest is supposed to be an intercessor for the people—pleading for mercy and help from God for them. The ad orientem position makes this relationship visually much clearer.
In the pulpit I am to preach God’s Word to the people. But in the Eucharistic prayers, I am to take the people’s spiritual needs to God, as an appointed intercessor. My sense of connection and ministration to the people in the prayers dramatically increased in this way, because I wasn’t looking at them, but looking to God with them.
4. It tacitly communicates a more robust theology of worship.
Ad orientem Eucharists in their very shape implicitly teach a robust theology of worship.
That is, the aspect of offering spiritual sacrifice to God is made much clearer. As the priest, I am presenting things to God, to please him. This is the essential definition of worship.
But what is pleasing to God? What can we present to him, that he will find acceptable? Certainly not our merits or works or anything from us, or even, anything in the created world whatsoever.
The only offering that is pleasing to God is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Golgotha. That was the one pleasing, propitiatory sacrifice. The only acceptable oblation to God the Father. The only act of true and acceptable worship.
Therefore, how dare we bring before Almighty God anything of less value! Therefore, the best (and only!) thing we can offer is a memorial of that one sacrifice on the cross. A remembrance to God, that we spiritually lift up before him, asking for him to accept in our place. We ask God the Father to accept the oblation of Jesus on our behalf, and in a mysterious way, we make this plea through the celebration of Holy Communion.
The only thing that we can offer to God of ourselves is our gratitude: Our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (to use the words of the Eucharistic prayer). And besides that, our whole selves, which we also offer in the prayer.
But even as we offer ourselves, it is not as ourselves that we render ourselves to the Father. Rather, as the Body of Christ, as part of Christ, we the Church present our lives, body and soul, to God, as part of Christ’s own offering of himself to God.
This is a great mystery, but it’s one that I (and others in the congregation) are beginning to peer into a little further, thanks to the more offering-like shape of a priest facing east, facing an altar and a cross, with bread and wine in his hands, praying to God.
Sure, but is it “missional”?
While switching to an ancient, unfamiliar way of celebrating the liturgy might not seem to be that mission-minded, it is perhaps worth noting that the rate of congregational growth we have experienced has increased since making the switch.
I have received many comments, both from long-time Anglicans and brand-new Baptist visitors, to the effect of:
- “I just love how much the priest is not front and center.”
- “I feel like I am able to really encounter God in the service, without the things of man getting in the way.”
- “I feel like I am re-learning reverence in worship.”
These are just a few of the sentiments I have heard. They have profoundly affirmed my theorizing and personal experience on the matter. I can say confidently that I shall celebrate facing east for the rest of my ministry.
Thanks for sharing, Ben. This has given me lots of food for thought as a priest. I have to confess that my fear of changing too much in our worship (I have been busy making many alterations over a period of years) makes it unlikely we will make a permanent switch to ad orientem in my current context, but this was a great presentation of how the recovery of such a practice might be a gift to the Church.
I wonder, Ben, is you have seen any attempts to combine the two orientations, perhaps with the Sursum Corda and Preface facing the people and the everything from the Sanctus to Anaphora facing “East,” the Lord’s Prayer facing the people, and so on.
Dear Kenneth — So, when the altar is against the wall, that only means that PRAYERS are prayed facing east, together with the people. Any time the people are addressed (The Absolution, The “Lord be with you”, The Comfortable words, the Sursum Corda, the Invitation to Communion, etc. As well as of course all the readings from the Word) the celebrant necessarily faces the people, because he is talking to them. Only when it is time to speak to God, does the celebrant turn and, joining the people, facing God together, address God, by focusing the direction of his body toward the central symbol of our Faith: The Cross of Christ, placed on or above the altar. So, even in ad orientem eucharists, there is some facing the people.
Now, one possibility of “combining” the orientations, especially in congregations where an ad orientem eucharist might come as a bit of shock — would be to alternate seasonally. Perhaps to celebrate facing east during Lent or Advent, and then switch back to a versus populum position for the rest of the year. This might be a good way to try at a “best of both worlds” while keeping the integrity of both.
Hope that helps.
Father Ben,
Would you be willing to share the resources you utilized in your research? I would enjoy reading these myself.
Thank you!
Sure!
With one caveat: Most of the “pro east-facing” writing comes out of Roman Catholic circles. I firmly repudiate transubstantiation and the repulsive and wrong idea that the celebration of the Eucharist in any way could add to the infinite merit of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. I reject these and all other romish errors, such as their repulsive attribution to the Blessed Virgin Mary of works and titles that are really accomplished by our Lord Jesus. I believe the Roman Church is in formal error, and needs to repent of it. I also believe that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and that not EVERYTHING that a Romanist writes on is tainted with error. Indeed, on all creedal-essentials, we share one and the same Faith.
Since the Romish church DOES believe erroneously on matters of the Eucharist, it is important to be judicious and discerning when reading them: Which of their arguments stem from theology that we Anglicans agree on, and which do not.
Having said all that — and not at all meaning to indict or judge and particular Roman Catholics, only the doctrine of the institution — I believe that careful reading of the best Roman writing on the subject of ad orientem celebration DOES come from and compel our Anglican verities:
So, what really stirred my heart on the matter was pages 78-80 in Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. That is the best place to start.
A number of smaller essays on the New Liturgical Movement got my attention: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=ad+orientem&btnG=Search+NLM&domains=New+Liturgical+Movement&sitesearch=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newliturgicalmovement.org
and there is a whole book on the subject by Uwe Lang ‘Turning Towards the Lord’ on Ignatius Press.
Hope that helps!
A Protestant dictionary, containing articles on the history, doctrines, and practices of the Christian church, Charles H. H. Wright and Charles Neil, eds., has an interesting article on the Eastward Position. It begin at: http://archive.org/details/aprotestantdicti00wriguoft/page/196. The Eastward Position was abandoned at the English Reformation due to its strong association with medieval Catholic doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, the medieval Catholic sacerdotal view of the priesthood, and the medieval Church’s sacramental system. The congregation was also unable to hear what the priest was saying and see what the priest was doing. Placing the Lord’s Table in the body of the church and having the priest stand at the north side of the Lord’s Table enabled the people to see the priest take bread and break it and to take the cup of wine when performing the manual acts. The people would gather around the table when it came time for the consecration and the communion of the people.
I notice that in the picture the priest is elevating the host, a practice that was prohibited in the 1549 BCP along with the showing of the host to the people due to its association with the practice of eucharistic adoration, which Archbishop Cranmer and the other English Reformers viewed as idolatrous.
The Caroline High Churchmen’s use of the Eastward Position was one of the reasons that their critics accused them of papalism. It contributed to the growing tension in the Church of England between the Calvinist Puritans who enjoyed wide popular support and the Arminian High Churchmen who enjoyed royal patronage. It would eventually lead to two bloody civil wars and would eventually cost Charles I and Archbishop Laud their heads.
The nineteenth century Ritualist movement which was an offshoot of the Tractarian movement and which sought to reunite the Church of England with the Church of Rome also revived the Eastward Position when they revived the medieval Catholic doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass.
The recovery of the ancient Westward Position was one of the major successes of the Liturgical Movement of the last century along with weekly celebrations of Holy Communion. While a priest may not realize it, when he turns his back to the eucharistic assembly, he is turning his back to Christ who is present in the midst of his people who are united to him and to each other by the Holy Spirit. This was an important insights of the Liturgical Movement. But it seems that ACNA clergy is more interested in reviving medieval Catholic practices than ancient ones to judge by a number of articles on this blog and the responses in the comment section.
I am presently involved in worship ministry at a Continuing Anglican church in which the priest takes the Eastward Position at the Lord’s Table for the consecration. Since I assist, I hear everything the priest says and see what he does. The rest of our small congregation does not. If they are not dozing off during the consecration, they have their noses buried in their prayer books. Most of them are sitting in the back of the room. Based upon my own experience as a liturgical minister in a number of Anglican and Episcopal churches the churches which have experienced the most growth and in which the congregation was most actively involved in the liturgy were those churches where the priest faced the people across the Lord’s Table and the people sat in close proximity of the Lord’s Table. This was also documented in the literature of the last century. Being close to the Lord’s Table and having eye contact with the priest encouraged more active liturgical involvement. n active involvement in the liturgy helped to generate excitement about the church and led to greater likelihood of the assembly’s members inviting friends, neighbors, relatives, and colleagues to church.On the other hand, the opposite encouraged passivity in the assembly and the members of the assembly were less likely to invite people to church. This dynamic may explain at least in part why very few Continuing Anglican churches are growing and most are in decline. The length of the services may also be another factor. Based on the conversations that I have with the students at my university, I have concluded that they are not attracted to long services where there is little involvement in the liturgy.
Kenneth, In the 1928 BCP’s Order for the Administration of the Holy Communion the priest is directed to face the congregation for the Sursum Corda and then turn to the Lord’s Table for the preface. If you want to learn more about the Eastward Position, I recommend Percy Dearmer’s The Parson’s Handbook. A number of Dearmer’s works can be found at: http://anglicanhistory.org/dearmer/ I recommend the last edition of The Parson’s Handbook. You also might find Dearmer’s Illustrations of the Liturgy, being Thirteen Drawings of the Celebration of the Holy Communion in a Parish Church, by Clement O. Skilbeck helpful. Dearmer follows the Anglican Use, not the Roman Catholic Use.
The reforms of Vatican II in the Roman Catholic Church would spark a renewal of worship in a number of other denominations, including the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and Reformed churches in the twentieth century. This renewal of worship not only resulted in the restoration of the ancient Western Position but also the renewal of the role of the priest or pastor as the president of the eucharistic assembly and the role of the eucharistic assembly in the liturgy. A priest or pastor is not presiding over the eucharistic assembly if his back is turned to the people. As Roman Catholic liturologists pointed out, the Body of Christ was not only found on the altar but also in his gathered people. When the priest or pastor faced the people across a free standing altar, he showed that he was a part of the eucharistic assembly and what he was saying and doing was a part of corporate prayer of the eucharistic assembly, and not something separated from it. The priest turning his back to the people did not convey the same message. It harkened back to the days when the priest said the Mass while the people said their own private devotions or chatted quietly while awaiting what for the laity was the highpoint of the Mass—the elevation or showing of the consecrated host to the people for adoration. The people were not even passive spectators since the priest was hidden from view by a rood screen and said the Mass inaudibly or en secreto. If the church had a choir, it sung elaborate polyphonic settings of the liturgical texts in Latin. These settings were purposely composed so that even the more educated members of the congregation who understood Latin would not understand what the choir was singing. Their purpose was to create an atmosphere of mystery and to cover the “mumblings” of the priest.
Among the results of this renewal of worship was a new appreciation of the value of signs. The priest facing the people itself was an important sign as were his actions—taking the cup, breaking the bread. If the signs of the eucharist were to have their maximum impact, bread should be bread. A single chalice should on the table during the consecration. The bread should be broken in the full sight of the people. And so on. There was decided movement away from the sacramental minimalism of the past. Baptisms should involve plenty of water and the baptized should get wet! Among the results of this renewal of worship was a renewal of the communion of the people. Roman Catholics were able to receive communion in both kinds, and not just the bread. There was new appreciation that receiving communion was not a solitary action but a communal action. By sharing the bread and wine together, the people not only received the grace-filled Body and Blood of Christ but they gave visible expression to the Body of Christ, his gathered people. The communion procession was compared to the great procession of the redeemed who were called to the wedding supper of the Lamb. The actions of the eucharist and not just the bread and wine were viewed as a foretaste of that heavenly banquet.
As a result of this worship renewal eucharistic assemblies were moved in closer proximity to the liturgical centers—the altar and the ambo (or lectern-pulpit) where they could see what the priest was doing as well as hear what he was saying. To foster a greater sense of community they were seated in a semi-circle around these liturgical centers or on two or three sides of them so that members of the assembly could see one another’s faces and recognize in one another the Body of Christ. It was discovered that there was a dynamic interplay between the priest facing the people and the positioning of the assembly in close proximity to these liturgical centers. The members of the assembly participated more actively in the liturgy. The late James F. White, former chair of Bard Thompson Chair of Liturgical Studies at Drew University, author of Introduction to Christian Worship and a number of other works on worship and liturgy, and a major contributor to the worship renewal of the twentieth century, explored this dynamic interplay in his writings. He found that the further a member of the assembly sat from these liturgical centers, the less likely that member of the assembly would participate in the liturgy. The position in which the priest or pastor led the assembly and whether he faced the people was also a significant contributing factor.
The church planting and church growth literature of the last 45 odd years shows that the more a member of a congregation is actively involved in the worship and ministry of a church, the more likely he is to have a positive view of the church. Members of a congregation who have a positive view of their church are more likely to invite others to church. Communities differ. What works in one community may not work in another. Before adopting a particular style of worship it is important to determine whether that style of worship is going to resonate with a wide segment of the unchurched population the community or just with a tiny segment of that population. A mistake that a number of Continuing Anglican church plants made during the last century and during this century is they put their worship preferences first and adopted a style of worship that did not resonate with the unchurched population of their community. As a consequence they did not flourish and eventually were forced to shut down. Being broad-based is critical not only for a new church’s survival but also its growth. If it launches with a very small base, it will be tied to whatever happens to that base. As the base shrinks, its membership will shrink. It is very difficult for a church that is accustomed to drawing its members from a particular base to make the transition to reaching and engaging a larger segment of the unchurched population.
All of Mr. Jordan’s claims about Anglican history and norms are hotly contested. There is a swath of anti-ritualist writings from the 1860s onward that would make similar claims, but there is just as large a swath of writings that argue the opposite. The reader will have to decide for herself which narrative accounts for the facts of history better (such as the ubiquity of altars against the east-wall). For one such summary, deciding in favor of the “pro” case, that there is nothing un-Anglican about ad orientem Eucharistic celebration: http://books.google.com/books?id=laQ8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&dq=ad+orientem+eucharist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizkKbyya3jAhUJH80KHfJVDb4Q6AEIRzAF#v=onepage&q=ad%20orientem%20eucharist&f=false
I also shall clarify, since it seems that I am being impugned otherwise, that, in keeping with our thirty-nine articles, I firmly reject the romish doctrine of the sacrifice of masses, and of transubstantiation. I also firmly confess that the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ was the one and only meritorious sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and to which no merit can be added. I also believe the high views about the Eucharist which the prayer books from every century put forward, but this is not the same as Romish error, as Mr. Jordan thus conflates them. I also agree with our articles that Communion was instituted for the receiving thereof, and grieve the wrong-headedness of the late middle ages that made looking to replace receiving. I am grateful for the course-correction that the Reformation wrought on this front, and especially that the cup was restored to the laity as well.
Also — I didn’t think this needed saying, but I am very careful to speak with clear, sufficiently loud diction when praying facing east, so that the entire congregation can here every word, and so that none of God’s truth is lost by mumbling. This is actually very important for the East-facing celebration to be vital, and though I would have preferred to have been read more charitably, I am glad that Mr. Jordan brought it up.
Fr. Ben, Thank you so much for your words. This article has led me to a better understanding of facing east AND I think a desire to now do so.
Thank you.
As Bishop Kinsman discerned long ago both Mr. Jordan and Fr. Jefferies are right according to the Anglican formularies so carefully produced to keep as many people within the Church of England. Church Papists and devout Protestants have worshipped together since day one of the Anglican reformation and both are entitled to their uses according to Anglican comprehensiveness.
I’m quite amused by Fr. Jefferies use of the term Romish for what he seems to perceive as all kinds of strange doctrines and practices. The interesting fact is that most, if not all, of these did not originate in Rome. Rather they were Gaulish, English and other developments. Edmund Bishop’s favorite word was Frenchified developments. The archbishops in their response to Leo XIII made special mention of the evangelical simplicity of the pope’s ancient predecessors vis a vis their ordination rites.
I suspect both of these gentlemen have their hearts in the right place and will continue to do great things for the All Holy Trinity.
Seraphim +
AC Of NA
We are the Church Militant. The sacred ministers are not “turning their back” on the people. They are the officers leading their troops over the top to take on the enemy.
This is a beautiful article.
Christian Faith in the contemporary West has tremendously declined in tandem with the rise of irreverent, banal, superficial poppy liturgy.
Restoring ancient liturgical praxis and worship will help to restore the Christian Faith in Europe, America, and the West. God bless!
I recognize that my opening two paragraphs overstate the case. It is NOT the case that ALL Anglicans worshiped facing East prior to 1950. I apologize for speaking this falsehood. It would be much more accurate for me to have said:
Since the early centuries of the Church, altars were built against the east-wall, and the priest celebrated Communion facing east. It was thus in England, at the dawn of the Refomation. In the early decades of the reformation, in many urban centers in England, some reforming priests and bishops moved these altars out from the east wall, or replaced them with wooden tables, and also experimented with facing different directions during Communion. Many who would be dubbed by historians as “puritans” favored a versus populum position, which, in the time of Cromwell’s Commonwealth, was regnant. With the restoration of Charles II to the throne, and the establishment of the Book of Common Prayer 1662, a “north end” celebration (interpreted in several different ways, in different areas and eras of England” was established as the norm. For some this was followed as the North End of the East-side, for others the North side of the Altar, and Historical Liturgical scholars make different cases.
In the Ritual movement that followed on the heels of the Oxford Movement, an Ad Orientem celebration of Communion regained ascendency, and what had always been the case in many royal chapels and country churches, became the dominant liturgical ordering. In the United States, where the young Episcopal Church was still finding its way, the Oxford and Ritual movements took a deep footing in the Mid-West and in the New England, and much of the church planting and missionary work in the West was supported from these centers, and thus, in America, Ad Orientem eucharists became the norm.
All this changed in the wake of the Liturgical Movement that became popular in the 1950s, and which was affirmed by the Second Vatican Council, and in this movement, many many Episcopal churchs pulled their altars out from the wall, and began a versus populum celebration.
Half of this history was a bit foggy in my mind, prior to my receiving some push-back. It was not intentional deception. I hope this clarifies things.
Also — I built my reasons — for my practice, and in this article, chiefly from experience — as to who I was facing and why. And the solid-ground of precedent that I find direction is, admittedly, more clearly in the early church, rather than Anglican History considered as a post-1536 phenomenon, which, I admit, is not mono-vocal on this front.
For a full discussion of the pertinent history, and which I think is fully convincing of the merit and authority of ad orientem celebration of Communion, I recommend: http://books.google.com/books?id=McAPAAAAIAAJ&dq=facing%20east%20communion&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q&f=false
in the four churches I served during my parish ministry that had altars against the East wall, I rejoiced to celebrate in the most historical and correct manner. I always explained that when I face the altar to the East I am praying with the congregation and not assuming the more clergy-centered role of facing them! I regret that some folks are sill tilling the furrow of anti-Roman Catholic/Papalist fears when it has largely been dissipated in our time, especially after the very fruitful ARIC (Anglican Roman International Consultation) that produced significant statements of agreement on the nature of the Eucharist and ordination. Another reason I prefer and advocate the Eastward orientation is that facing the congregation emphasizes the “fellowship meal” dimension of the liturgy which has led to a much more casual and even sloppy approach to celebrating. I love “low church” as much as “high church” but only when both are done in a reverent, careful manner rather than “creative” or careless fashion. ( It saddens me that we have lost the beauty of Choral Morning Prayer! ) Furthermore, one of the downsides of all the turbulent liturgical renewal is clerical experimentation (sometimes I think some priests get bored and so “play” with the liturgy which is most unfortunate) is the general loss of prayerful preparation for Holy Communion and thanksgiving afterward which has meant many disciples are spiritually unprepared and thus less effectively spiritually participating in the liturgy. So much of “liturgical renewal” has been based on the theories of scholars that may be untested. One result I’m sure of is that the Westward orientation has led to a loss of the sense of the transcendent in the liturgy, and a loss of approaching God’s altar with godly and holy fear. Lastly, when I was rector of St. Mark’s, San Antonio, which then still had an unaltered Victorian neo-Gothic altar and reredos (since changed, which us unfortunate since so many beautiful historic churches have been architecturally ruined by moving the altar or the altar trivialized by placing a temporary one in the nave) each Sunday when I raised the chalice (thus helping the congregation to participate in the action and symbol of the chalice) I could see the whole congregation reflected in the outside bowl of the cup–it was a powerful reminder to me of our unity in Christ Jesus! I miss that reminder.
greetings from New Zealand…Vatican II…NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, (ANGLICAN??) regards…Trevor Collins.
Note that in “versus populum” the priest IS facing the altar. So is the congregation. So in a sense – and I take it as a Roman Catholic that the altar is Christ – Mass facing the people does have everyone facing the altar and facing Christ together.
Already mentioned in this excellent article is the fact that a priest – when acting AS a priest – is an intercessor. “Ad Orientem” makes this manifest, as the priest will at times during Mass face the altar (symbolically face God) with the people, then turn to speak to the people, then turn back to the altar again, etc. It’s visually powerful. I for one have never felt “excluded” because the priest at the altar is facing in the same direction as me. Imagine going to a symphony concert and feeling miffed or left out because you see the back of the conductor? The experience of hearing the music isn’t ABOUT “the conductor”.
Thanks Fr. for your interesting and clear reasoning. I personally think that parts should be towards the people and parts toward the Lord’s Table. However I do have a question regarding the 1662 BCP, which apparently states that the celebrant should stand on the north side of the altar. I myself have not read it, and find it rather inconvenient to stand facing south. The people are in the west, so the celebrant would be facing a wall, and it would be difficult to celebrate with such limited space on the table. Could you please shed some light on this? Thanks.