Q: Regarding your post about GIRM 299 – Priest facing the people .
I admit to being dismissive about the September 25, 2000 Responsum regarding versus populum posture. It seems to be a contorted reading of the original Latin by taking the ut-clause not as a purpose clause (which if obviously is) but as a result clause and by taking the quod clause as not referring to the most recent point but to an earlier point. I also admit to preferring versus populum, but I’m a pretty good Latinist, and I think the congregation failed in correctly understanding the Latin written by its predecessors.
A: Thanks for these comments. I agree that the interpretation seems contorted.