“Being careful not to turn his back on the Blessed Sacrament”

This little rubric, while clearly important, is difficult to find, because it is generally given almost as a parenthetical reminder of something everyone should know. I know I have seen it in various rubrics books, and certain that I could track it down again, but today I could not do so precisely, except in a nineteenth-century translation of the Ceremoniali according to the Roman Rite, where it describes the action of the celebrant after the distribution of the Sacrament, when he has presented the chalice to the Subdeacon and kissed the altar. He then “turns round by the Gospel side towards the people, taking care not to turn his back to the Blessed Sacrament, and says Dominus vobiscum. . . .” It’s generally not referenced as an index entry either.

But as I indicated, it’s clearly important, so much so that it is assumed to be understood, almost as if to say, “being careful, of course, not to turn his back on the Blessed Sacrament.” As in, who would ever do that, knowing what it is? It’s not even a point that should need to be argued. Who would ever want to turn his back on Jesus? Yet it does seem important on occasion to remind the would-be celebrant not to forget this while thinking of so many other things in the course of ceremony.

We must be mindful at the altar. We are attending to the holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, after all.

Further, it’s helpful to note that “[c]ommunication is not limited to language. We express ourselves to others and we receive impressions from others and from God through signs and symbols. These communications by signs and symbols are often more effective than those of language. While this is true in ordinary life, it is particularly true in the church’s worship. The things communicated there have to do with the mysteries of our holy faith” (Paul H. D. Lang, Ceremony and Celebration, CPH 1965, reproduced by Redeemer Lutheran Church of Fort Wayne, Indiana and Emmanuel Lutheran Church of Adell, Wisconsin, 2014, 57-58).

On the matter of turning one’s back, admittedly sometimes that can be rather difficult to follow precisely, as, for instance, when the celebrant is communing his assistants at the altar if their place of kneeling is close to the altar. But the intuitive point remains that one should always be aware of the Body and Blood of Christ, and where they are. When I as celebrant turn to face the congregation with Host and Cup after the consecration, for the Pax Domini, I step slightly to one side so that my back is not turned to the elements remaining on the altar.

But there is a greater liturgical observation and criticism that needs to be made here. Sometimes one can witness a truly unfortunate ignorance of this intuitive principle at the very point of consecration. The celebrant, probably thinking that he wants to emphasize that what he is holding in his hands at that moment is truly the Body of Christ, will take the celebrant’s host and turn toward the congregation with it while saying the Words of Institution, forgetful of the fact that the remaining hosts are at this moment behind him on the altar. Although no doubt he does not mean to say that he is only consecrating the celebrant’s host alone, and that he has in mind all the rest of the hosts behind him on the altar, that is not what his body language is clearly implying. His back is turned, intentionally, away from everything but the one host he holds aloft to consecrate. To say nothing of the fact that this is an unfortunate mixture of the consecration and the elevation, it is unquestionably implying that the remaining hosts are not here being consecrated. Though no one should take that implication seriously, there is an unsettling disagreement here between what is intended and what is implied. For the sake of argument, suppose some visitor happened to walk in that day who had never been in one of our churches before, and had no prior information about what we believe on this matter. Since there is no verbal communication at all to indicate that all of the hosts on the altar are the intended objects of the consecration, this visitor could be forgiven if he came away thinking that in this strange new place there was one host only being consecrated, and that the rest were symbolic, somehow. For that is clearly what is implied! Oddly, I must admit that this is one reason for using a free-standing altar, though I’d hasten to add that in itself it’s still a rather poor justification for it.

Pastors, if there was ever a time to reform your practice immediately, this would be it, if it so happens that you discover that you have been guilty of this error. Take heart, you did not mean to be saying what your action is implying, and everybody knows that, except, perhaps, for that hypothetical visitor. But now that you have been made aware of it, there’s no excuse to continue the error. You may not imply with your actions what you did not mean to imply. Do not turn your back on the elements, most particularly at the moment of consecration! Consecrate all the elements on the altar. Consider the important rubric from Piepkorn that has the celebrant clearly indicating all the elements on the altar which he is to consecrate (The Conduct of the Service (Originally published by CPH in 1965, reprinted by Redeemer Press in Fort Wayne, 27). Take pains, be mindful of what you are doing, being careful not to turn your back on the Blessed Sacrament.