Sosiologiske aspekter ved versus populum feiring av messen

… the practice (of the priest facing the other way) that had been in use before gave the impression that the priest was the leader and representative of the faithful acting as a spokesperson for the faithful, like Moses on Mount Sinai. The faithful assumed the role of sending a message (prayer, adoration, sacrifice); the priest functioned as the leader delivering the message; God as the recipient of the message.

In his new role, continues Siebel, the priest

hardly continues to function as the representative of the faithful, but as an actor who plays God’s role, at least during the central part of the Mass, similar to what is played out in Oberammergau and other religious plays.

Siebel draws this conclusion:

This new turn of events having changed the priest into an actor expected to play the role of Christ on stage, in the re-enactment of the Last Supper, makes the persons of Christ and the priest merge in a way that heretofore had been impermissible.

Siebel explains the readiness with which almost all priests accepted the versus populum celebration:

The considerable level of insecurity and loneliness experienced by the priest naturally brings about a search for new emotional support structures. A part of this emotional support is the support provided by the faithful. Yet, this support also leads to a new form of dependency: the dependency of the actor on his audience.

While in the past, the priest functioned as the anonymous go-between, the first among the faithful, facing God and not the people, representative of all and together with them offering the Sacrifice, while reciting prayers that have been prescribed for him today he is a distinct person, with personal characteristics, his personal lifestyle, his face turned towards the people. For many priests this change is a temptation they cannot handle, the prostitution of their person. Some priests are quite adept some less so at taking personal advantage of a situation. Their gestures, their facial expressions, their movements, their overall behavior, all serve to subjectively attract attention to their person. Some draw attention to themselves by making repetitive observations, issuing instructions, and lately, by delivering personalized addresses of welcome and farewell …To them, the level of success in their performance is a measure of their personal power and thus the indicator of their feeling of personal security and self-assurance.

The view advanced by Klauser, cited above, that the celebration versus populum «serves to more clearly express the Eucharistic community around the table,» is addressed by Siebel in his work, Liturgy as an Offer:

The intended pulling closer together of the people around the table of the Lord’s Supper hardly contributes to a strengthening of the sense of community. It is only the priest who is actually at the table, and standing at the table, at that. The other partakers in the supper are sitting, closer or farther removed, in the auditorium.

To this, Siebel adds another observation:

Usually, the altar table is situated at a distance and it is elevated, which means that the sense of togetherness that existed in the room where the Last Supper took place simply cannot be re-created. Facing the people, it is difficult for the priest not to give the impression that he is trying very hard to sell us something. To correct this impression, attempts are made to move the altar into the midst of the faithful. In that way, the individual does not have to look just at the priest, he can now also look at the person next to him or at the person sitting across from him. Moving the altar into the midst of the faithful, however, also means that the space between a sacral center and the faithful is being lost. The holy fear that used to seize us when entering the church where God was really present, is replaced by weak sentiment, a response to something that is little more than ordinary.

From a sociological perspective, placing the priest behind the altar, facing the people, turns him into an actor, totally dependent on his audience, and also into a salesman offering his wares to the public. And if he has any talent at all, he can develop into a real huckster.

The reading of the Gospel, on the other hand, is something entirely different. It requires that the priest face the people. Accordingly, in the old basilicas, with the entrance being placed at the East side, the faithful faced the apse (West) during the Liturgy of the Word. In this situation, when proclaiming the Gospel, the priest is, indeed, making an offer to the public. Just as there is no question that the priest face the people during the homily, the lector or reader should read the Gospel facing the people which, incidentally, was not always the case, presumably due to a sense of reverence for the Word of God.

Something entirely different again, as we have already observed, is the actual Liturgy of the Eucharist. Here, the liturgy is no longer just an «offer» to the people but a holy event, an event when heaven and earth unite and God’s grace flows to us. Here, the direction of the participant and that of the priest must be focused in prayer on the Lord. It is only during the Communion of the Faithful, which is the Eucharistic meal in its true sense, that we again have the priest facing the individual communicant.