Then those that don’t think it was a big change won’t mind changing back. But the truth is, It actually is a big change. Psychologically and liturgically, the theological expression is different.
Most priests of all stripes will admit that being the “master of ceremonies” distracts the congregation from Christ and the brings it to the priest. This is why people gravitate towards the priests they like instead of Christ at Calvary.
The truth of the matter is that that is the older tradition.
That is extremely debatable.
Jesus faced the apostles for the most part at the last supper.
Irrelevant. The Mass is more than the Last Supper. It is Calvary first and foremost.
The early church gathered around the table for “the breaking of the bread”
Archeologism is not a reason to bring back an undeveloped form of liturgy.
During persecutions, some times, Mass began to be celebrated in the Catecombs on a tomb.
Yes. And each time the priest kisses the altar he is commemorating the early martyrs.
In those instances, the priest had his back to the people.
No. He was leading the people to God. He didn’t turn his back on God in order to be the master of ceremonies.
St. Peter (Vatican city), “St. Paul outside the walls” Churches that are quite old, both have always had the main altar “facing the people.”
That according to Msgr Klaus Gamber was the exception not the rule because of pagan Roman influences. And even in those circumstances, during the Eucharistic prayers, the congregation turned their backs to the priest.
Many other older churches also a set up that way.
People facing East–I have only heard of that in very recent times.
Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria all stated that worship was Eastward.
Even in the Seminary liturgy classes this was never mentioned.
What Seminary was that? Post conciliar seminaries are notorious for redacting the most Catholic of elements.
I am of the opinion, that someone invented this recently and for some reason a large group bought into it.
Actually it was the liturgical innovators of the 30’s that started the “facing the people” in light of their Fruedian, Marxist, Darwinian mentalities.
The priest facing the altar with his back to the people is actually of more recent development than the priest facing the people.
So you imagine. But it’s not. The priest in the Old Temple didn’t face the people when he approached the Holy of Holies.
Thank God we realized this and returned to this!.
Why??? The numbers in attendance, the orthodoxy and the liturgical abuse don’t seem to have been positively affected by priests facing the people.
The priest is supposed to become transparent during the Mass. Watch a TLM and the priest is almost anonymous. You see a cross on his back and you see Our Lord at the Elevation, not a priest’s face.