Right, and Gamber's argument, I believe, is that where the bishop's chair was in the center of the apse wall, obviously there was a freestanding altar and the bishop stood behind the altar, facing the apse wall, facing in the same direction as the people (assuming the church was oriented to the east) as he celebrated Mass, not that he came from the chair against the apse wall to stand at the east edge of the free-standing altar, facing the people and facing west. Of course, at this time altars were not attached to the wall of the apse and there were no tabernacles on the altar against the wall. I would imagine that altars became attached to the sanctuary wall first in non-cathedral churches without a bishop's cathedra, where the litrugy was being celebrated by a priest. But that is speculation on my part.
>>> [log in to unmask] 01/23/01 08:26AM >>>
I believe the architecture of some of the churches in Rome also contributes
to this idea. The placing of the bishop's throne in the apse, facing the
congregation, might be taken as showing a different orientation for the
liturgy in late Antiquity & the early Middle Ages.
At 07:53 AM 1/23/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>This reflects one of the myths of the liturgical movement of the last four
>decades. Klaus Gamber, The Mass of the Roman Rite (title may not be
>exact) is the most thorough study of this question. He argues that the
>issue in the ancient chuch had nothing to do with "toward the people" or
>"away from the people." The celebrant always faced east--that was the
>fixed, firm principle. Most churches were oriented to the East, so, in
>most cases, the celebrant was facing, like the people, toward the
>east--all facing the same direction, toward Christ, to the Son of
>Righteousness etc. with all that symbolism.
>Those few churches that were oriented (hardly an appropriate word here) to
>the west, posed a problem. The priest had to face East even if the people
>were not facing East. Gamber argues that these are what the references to
>"versus populum" refer to.
>To my knowledge, though Gamber has been denounced as a tradtionalist, he
>has not been refuted on his research on this point. Joseph Ratzinger
>summarizes Gamber in his recent book, _The Spirit of the Liturgy_.
>The rubrics of the 1970 Roman Missal assume that the priest will be facing
>the same direction as the people because they say at some points that he
>should turn and face the people. Incidentally, many of these "turning
>points" were also in the rubrics of the Roman Missal of Pius V (the
>I imagine Jungmann may be responsible for the widespread idea that
>sometime during the Middle Ages, alas, the priest turned his back on
>people and the Mass ceased to be a popular celebration and became a
>clerical affair. This is the general tone of Jungmann others of his
>era. Eamon Duffy has challenged him on a number of points of scholarship,
>pointing out how Jungmann used modern criteria of "participation" rather
>than medieval criteria for what constitutes "popular participation." This
>was in an address to the Society for Catholic Liturgy, published in their
>journal, _Antiphon_ vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 3-12 (approximately 1997 or 1998).
> >>> [log in to unmask] 01/22/01 09:37PM >>>
>Some of us were discussing an issue this am that we could not resolve: when
>the celebrant at Mass turned away from the congregation to face the
>wall/apse. Some thought it was in the Carolingian period, accompanying a
>rise in the sense of awe and fear in the presence of God, so that the priest
>becomes chief suppliant and go between; others placed the turn in the 13th
>century perhaps associated with the heightened devotion to the Eucharist and
>the "secrecy" that would dictate its confection being hidden from the
>congregation. What is the real answer?