When the celebrant and the people are both facing the east (ad orientem), the celebrant is clearly leading the people in prayer. When the celebrant is facing the people (versus populum), it is far too easy (IMHO) to sneak in a bit of liturgical theater, rather than concentrating on what's really happening in the sacrifice of the Mass. (I attribute the emphasis on the "table of the Lord" versus the "sacrifice of the Mass" in many parishes on this)
When the people receive the body and blood, do they walk up to the high altar, or do the celebrant(s) bring the host and chalice to them?
There is an altar rail where people kneel to receive. Alternately, the priests and deacons (the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion) could carry the Body and Blood to more strategic locations outside of the sanctuary.
There seems to be some practical logistical issues that were solved by placing the altar closer to the people (usually in the crossing in cruciform shaped churches).
From what I've seen, this is not that much of a major issue in classic cruciform churches.
The question is this- what benefit does using the "high altar" provide other than some cool liturgical theater?
IMHO, as said above, it helps prevent a whole lot of "cool liturgical theater," as the celebrant is reminded that Christ is the male lead in the theater and that he, the celebrant, is in a supporting role.
Examples: you ever see as the host is consecrated, that the priest appears to offer it out to the congregation? Same with the wine as it is being consecrated into the Precious Blood? Ever notice a priest ad libbing on the Roman Canon?
Thanks for the kind clarifications. They are very helpful.
I think the issue mentioned in the 2nd post in "What Does the Prayer Really Say" (the "notitiae" statement) is that in a Church in which there IS already a high altar (as in many beautiful urban Churches), that it is not necessary to place an altar table in front of it.
If one will recall, ETWN televised beautiful Novus Ordo masses in which the priest was "ad orientem" and a great deal of Latin was used during the Consecration. Much of the rest of the Mass was in the vernacular. If this old brain remembers correctly, I believe the Bishop for the Alabama region in which EWTN is located has not been named (the former retired; he stopped this practice). There is great interest to see if the new Bishop will once allow the N.O. to be said with more Latin and "ad orientem."