I said I stood to be corrected. That should teach me to quote from memory! I stand corrected with regard to Luther’s words.

I agree with what you say about Christ’s presence and eschatology. What I had in mind was somewhat different: the Lord’s Supper is in itself an eschatological event, where the future breaks in on the present. The Christ, who will come bodily at the parousia, comes to us bodily (though hidden) in the Sacrament.

I for one like to think of Christ always coming ab oriente (is that the correct Latin??). The Eucharist [I know how much you like that term!] is as much a rehearsal of the parousia as it is a re-presentation (to us!) of Christ’s sacrifice (1 Cor 11:26).

As for ex post facto symbolism, I’m sure there’s a great deal of it in the liturgy—in the vestments alone! I’m happy to judge each case on its merits.

The fact that I haven’t re-oriented in my own practice, my views above notwithstanding, perhaps suggests that not only do I consider the matter entirely an adiaphoron but also that much of what you write does also make sense, and it is pretty much how I have taught my own congregation to regard my own (inherited) practice. I’m happy to agree to disagree, with you and with myself.

I think that the early “orientation” (i.e., facing east) was a prayer posture, and was not specifically connected to the act of consecration. Prayer was directed towards the coming Christ. But I’m not convinced that this posture itself was meant to give the Sacrament an eschatological perspective. I’ve never read a church Father say something like, “we face east for the consecration because the Lord’s Supper is an anticipation of the return of Christ on the Last Day.” Yet that’s the interpretation that is regularly given to the ad orientem posture by modern liturgiologists. I think this may be another case of ex post facto symbolism. I’m not denying that the Sacrament has this eschatological perspective, just that I don’t buy the explanation that the priest stands with us on one side of the altar so that we are “open” to Christ’s return.

In fact, in many of the RC authors I read, I find that this kind of explanation seems to evidence a weak confession of the Real Presence. They speak not of Christ on the altar, but as Christ coming in the future. (Uwe Lang says that gathering around the altar is “anthropocentric”. How can that be, if Christ’s body and blood are on the altar?) Likewise, they speak not of the priest standing in loco Christi, but as representing the people speaking to a Christ who is still to come. I think we Lutherans have a more robust doctrine of the office of the ministry which more strongly supports the notion of the pastor representing Christ.

The quotation Phil offered from AE 38:208 would seem to say the opposite, but (and I hope this doesn’t sound weasely), it needs to be read in context. It is within a discussion of the private mass. Luther is rejecting the idea, firstly, that the priest can say mass in a beneficial way without giving the gifts to the flock, and, secondly, that he can operate as a private individual and do what he wishes apart from the mandate of Christ and the public office. So Luther says, “you say the words because you are an officer of the church, and you say them to Christ, begging Him to use them according to His mandate.” But I don’t think Luther is saying that this definition of the consecration is complete, as if the words are directed to Christ. Just go back a few pages and hear Luther say:

We hear these words, “This is my body,” not as spoken concerning the person of the pastor or the minister but as coming from Christ’s own mouth who is present and says to us: “Take, eat, this is my body.” … we hear Christ himself through the pastor’s mouth speaking to us and commanding that we should take bread and wine at his word, “This is my body,” etc.” (AE 38:199-200)

I also went back and looked at the Deutsche Messe comment, wondering whether Tapani is right about its ambiguity. But I find it hard to interpret Luther any other way. He connects the two statements: “the altar should not remain where it is, and the priest should always face the people as Christ doubtlessly did in the Last Supper” (AE 53:69). Note the word “always”, and the fact that Luther gives his comment a Christological symbolism. This would seem to support the (apparently) ancient practice of the bishop/priest sitting in his chair behind the altar for the entire service, acting as paterfamilias at a banquet. Since we don’t have basilica style churches with a chair in an apse, I would prefer to argue for doing going behind the altar just during the Service of the Sacrament, but not just for the consecration. Not only the verba are said vice Christi, but also the preface dialogue, the Lord’s Prayer (which the minister says alone in the traditional rite), and the pax domini—and you can’t run back and forth with every line.

One final thought (because this is rambling on a bit!): I did have a look at Uwe Michael Lang’s latest book. Though I certainly haven’t read the whole thing, it’s pretty clear that his argument for a return to ad orientem position is based on a strongly sacrificial view of the Lord’s Supper. He hammers this point over and over again. It’s not simply an objective re-evaluation of the historical evidence. Although I certainly don’t believe that we Lutherans must interpret this position sacrificially, the strength of the arguments in favour of it constantly press me back to defend the versus populum position.

Tom, I would respond to your first comment by noting the terminology. Regardless of which way the people face, the priest has always faced ad orientem. The early church versus populum was not so much the priest’s versus populum as it was the people’s versus ministrum.

One thing I didn’t touch on in the original article is the eschatological significance of ad orientem. The pastor, even when acting in loco Christi, always stood to the West of the altar. We still receive Christ from the East, as long as we await His coming. Versus populum obscures that.

In fact, there is no suggestion in Luther’s Deutsche Messe that the pastor should reorient himself with regard to the altar. To my eyes at least, he appears to be suggesting that the pastor should turn to face the congregation for the consecration—as in fact I’ve known some pastors to do. It certainly makes very poor sense to me (though this is what I in fact do) to pray the Preface and the Lord’s Prayer, or to sing the Sanctus and Agnus Dei, versus populum. Those words are not sung in loco Christi! If going behind the altar for the consecration is the thing to do, that’s what I suggest we should do: go behind the altar for the consecration.

Caveat emptor: I stand to be corrected.

I was about to chime in regarding the orientation (occidentation?) of Patristic-era churches, but I’m glad to see you beat me to it.

Is there any indication that Luther considered the Verba to be directed primarily at the elements? Obviously, it’s not a strictly either-or kind of thing, but I would think that the setting of the Verba to the Gospel tone (possibly Luther’s finest contribution to the liturgy) in addition to his comments in the Deutsche Messe would suggest that Luther considered the Verba to be directed primarily to the people. If the analogy of Baptism is valid (and it may not be), certainly it’s the Word of God that makes the water into “a gracious water of life,” but the baptismal formula isn’t addressed to the water.

On a side note, I initially read your comment without taking the time to notice who wrote it, and I noted approvingly that your preferred practice for presiding aligned closely with what I had been taught. Then I looked back at who authored the comment and realized the reason for that alignment!