Cardinal Sarah asks priests to start celebrating Mass facing east this Advent

[OraLabora]

And actually, it was – if I may tell you – a rather bizarre fashion of “concelebration” at best.

As with so much involving the liturgy, this was a reality that the West had lost but that we recovered with the restoration of the liturgy after Vatican II. The Council Fathers specifically directed that there was to be the authentic recovery of concelebration, which had been preserved outside the Western Church.

From Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. 1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:

a) on the Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.

b) at Masses during councils, bishops’ conferences, and synods;

c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

1. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:

a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;

b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests’ meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.

(my bold).

I thought I would add the reference. Not to derail the thread, but because the necessity of accommodating concelebration in places where it is common, or in fact the norm, is something that needs to be accounted for before enforcing ad orientem celebration of the Mass.

But then the good cardinal foresaw this by adding the comments “where possible” in his statement. This means he recognizes that there are places and circumstances where it will neither be feasible nor desirable.

I should also point out in 2. above “with permission of the ordinary” does not mean the diocesan bishop in the case of a monastery of pontifical right, but in fact with the abbot who is the ordinary in that circumstance. He has the authority to regulate liturgy in his monastery.

 

[ProVobis]

As I said.

No document, it’s just a suggestion.

Suggestions from Rome do not get heeded.

I suppose it can be taken that way, but when my mother requested or suggested I do something, I saw it as a command.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you Father, I always appreciate your posts because they are always filled with wisdom.

Quick question based on your post: when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s almost all the priests who I attended Mass with prayed the intro rites and closing rites from the Altar, only praying the creed from the Chair

I still see some older priests doing this. Was that typical in 80s? I’ve always been a fan of liturgy and ritual (not just Church liturgy and ritual, but organizational too) so these things interest me.

Thank you for your priesthood and God Bless

It is a question you would almost have to ask them. It would be hard far me to answer, beyond speculating, based upon the information that I have.

From my own experience, I can say that the rubrics give a marked preference to these rites occurring from the Presider’s Chair…which is supposed to come across as a liturgical reality…not simply the practical fulfillment of the fact that the Presider needs some place to sit. On the other hand, it is not supposed to look like a throne, which is proper to a bishop or an abbot (but not a Prior or Prior Provincial!). That can be its own challenge to have the chair appear significant in a large space and yet not have a throne-like appearance…but that is digression from this topic.

There were times over the years when I opted to do the rites from the altar instead of the Chair for purely practical reasons: I had no server to hold the missal…or the server was too you, slight or short to be asked to do so. If there wasn’t any sort of lectern or stand at hand that could hold the missal, the I used the altar missal at the altar. I would never ask the Deacon assisting to hold the missal for me, if he is vested in dalmatic. (If he were Master of Ceremonies in cassock and surplice, that would be another matter.)

Also, frankly, some places did not do a good job in locating the Presider’s Chair in such a fashion that the Presider, from that location, truly appeared to preside over both the liturgical action and the liturgical assembly. I remember a time or two where I was celebrating as a visiting priest and opted not to do the rites from the Chair because it was in a remote corner of the sanctuary and not truly visible to the assembly in a meaningful way but was one more piece of liturgical furnishing in the sanctuary.

When celebrating a private Mass, I only use the Chair to sit after Communion as I pray before the Post Communion Oration. When I do so, I am facing a chapel of empty chairs.

 

[edwest2]

Jews pray towards Jerusalem.

Christians have been praying towards the east since the time of Jesus. Facing the people is a new phenomenon that has only gained wide practice within the Latin Church since the 70’s.

Correct.

Ed

 

[on_the_hill]

Jews pray towards Jerusalem.

Christians have been praying towards the east since the time of Jesus. Facing the people is a new phenomenon that has only gained wide practice within the Latin Church since the 70’s.

I don’t know what ad absidem means, and I Googled it. This turned up in a blog:

Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Pope Benedict’s failure to celebrate ad orientem
When Pope Benedict recently celebrated mass on the traditional altar in the Sistine Chapel, he did not celebrate ad orientem, but ad absidem. The Sistine Chapel, like many of the churches of Rome, is not oriented. Michaelangelo’s painting is on the western wall of the chapel, thus a celebration at the old altar in the chapel is not ad orientem but ad absidem. To celebrated ad orientem, the Pope, ironically, would have to celebrate versus populum. But then, the tradition of celebrating ad orientem, while common in the Western Church and almost universal in the Eastern Church, was never a concern for the Roman Church. Now, I understand an appeal to Tradition (capital T) in the ad orientem issue–though, again, not a Tradition the Roman Church subscribed to with any consistency–but ad absidem? One can hardly call that “Tradition.” Nowhere that I am familiar with do the Fathers extoll the virtue of praying facing the wall. Of course in the Scripture when King Hezekiah was told he was dying, he turned his face to the wall and prayed (cf. Is. 38), but this is hardly the model for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. No, one of the better things that came out of the Liturgical Reforms of the Second Vatican Council was the the dissemination of the Roman practice of celebrating versus populum.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I don’t know what ad absidem means, and I Googled it. This turned up in a blog:

Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Pope Benedict’s failure to celebrate ad orientem
When Pope Benedict recently celebrated mass on the traditional altar in the Sistine Chapel, he did not celebrate ad orientem, but ad absidem. The Sistine Chapel, like many of the churches of Rome, is not oriented. Michaelangelo’s painting is on the western wall of the chapel, thus a celebration at the old altar in the chapel is not ad orientem but ad absidem. To celebrated ad orientem, the Pope, ironically, would have to celebrate versus populum. But then, the tradition of celebrating ad orientem, while common in the Western Church and almost universal in the Eastern Church, was never a concern for the Roman Church. Now, I understand an appeal to Tradition (capital T) in the ad orientem issue–though, again, not a Tradition the Roman Church subscribed to with any consistency–but ad absidem? One can hardly call that “Tradition.” Nowhere that I am familiar with do the Fathers extoll the virtue of praying facing the wall. Of course in the Scripture when King Hezekiah was told he was dying, he turned his face to the wall and prayed (cf. Is. 38), but this is hardly the model for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. No, one of the better things that came out of the Liturgical Reforms of the Second Vatican Council was the the dissemination of the Roman practice of celebrating versus populum.

If one says one is “ad orientem,” you are “to the East.” Personally, I only use the term if, in fact, the altar is so positioned that I am, factually, facing the Orient. The East is a compass direction. I am either facing East or I am facing a direction of the compass that is not East. I do not engage in saying that I am facing East when I am, actually, facing South.

The majority of the altars in Saint Peter’s Basilica, to use one well known example, do not have the celebrant facing East.

 

[tryphon]

Another aspect of this wonderful development might be the dialogue with the SSPX. This change to ad orientem came about as a result of a request by the Holy Father and he has stated that he is aware of the SSPX’s good faith and sacramental practice.

I am sure that this was a factor in the decision.

 

[tryphon]

I agree with every point you made: i was about to post a very similar message!!!

 

[Brendan]

FYI,

Here is an essay from then Cardinal Ratzinger on the subject

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_altareast_jan06.asp

 

[drforjc]

I have never noticed this. I’ve been to both orientations, albeit I worship mainly in Benedictine monasteries. I’ve been to monasteries that do it in both directions. Frankly, to suggest that a monk-priest is trying to “entertain” the congregation is mildly offensive. Monks work hard to blend themselves into the liturgy. The Mass at our abbey is concelebrated, and the configuration of the altar, especially its positioning relative to the choir would have the perverse effect of causing the dropping of one Benedictine tradition to take on a specifically non-monastic one (ad orientem). Moreover, it would introduce a huge incongruity into the liturgy where the altar, and what happens on it, would be totally obscured by the concelebrating priests (roughly 15 plus some visiting priests on occasion).

To me that would detract from the reverence of the liturgy and detract from the communal aspect of the monastic liturgy.

That said, there was one parish where our schola regularly sang. The two regular priests there indeed tended to draw attention to themselves (especially with their homilies). At the consecration one liked to sing (rather loudly) the EP. The other didn’t really “put on a show” at that part of the liturgy.

However one day a visiting missionary priest filled in and like all religious, he was utterly transparent to the liturgy in that he carried it out with great humility and never imposing himself on it. He recited the Mass and did not sing, but did so with such reverence, humility and transparence that it was an utterly beautiful moment. He was the same during the homily, which was low-key, utterly orthodox and thoughtful.

To me it is setting up a false dichotomy to say that versus populum results in the priest trying to “entertain” the faithful (which he can nonetheless still do at the homily if he really leans that way).

And if a priest can be a distraction “versus populum”, what to say about this ad orientem Mass that I attended at Monte Cassino:

i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Italy%202009/b5c5c286-1ce9-49b5-8e03-4c93fd72f978_zpsk7zzvkj5.jpg

It’s a far cry from the “noble simplicity” that Sacrosanctum Concilium called for (and not very keeping with the monastic tradition either). Note too that the monks’ stalls are behind the altar, so the abbot is actually versus populum for his community, which is keeping with monastic tradition. But the ostentation isn’t.

I didn’t say that versus populum couldn’t be celebrated reverently. However, I stand behind my statement that I felt a palpable difference, other things being relatively equal.

You are in a rather enviable position of having Benedictine congregation where mass is offered reverently and beautifully. In many diocesan churches, I guarantee you will see some “entertainers.” I have seen them. I don’t intend to disparage any particular priest but such do exist.

 

[Fuerza]

I partially agree with you. I’m 33 and also have a preference for the TLM. Unfortunately, due to my work schedule, I am only able to get to the one TLM within a reasonable distance from my home about once a month. On the bright side, that particular Mass has many many young families in attendance, and enough demand for TLMs has recently emerged that a second Mass was started in another parish about an hour away. But I digress…

I don’t actually think that the EF and OF should switch places, as most Catholics will never go for it. The EF should stay as it is, but with wider availability (perhaps even requiring all seminarians to learn both forms). I agree however that, within the OF, bringing the clergy back to ad orientem for at least part of the Mass would be a great step. I would actually like to see the Offertory and the EP done ad orientem, with the option for versus populum during the rest of the Mass. I think we should also get away from the phrase “ad orientem” for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Some dislike the terms “ad Deum” or “ad Dominum” because they believe they detract from the idea that God is everywhere. I disagree, but it is what it is. Maybe we can use something like “cum populo” (or cum populum, my Latin cases are a little rusty so I don’t remember which is correct). Many disagree, but a change in the priest’s posture as he works his way towards the consecration would emphasize to me that something distinct and remarkable was about to occur. I understand that this is not the tradition for many monastic communities. In their case perhaps an exception could be carved out.

I’ll also touch on your comment about music because I can relate it to the issue at hand. Using doctrinally and seasonally appropriate hymns, either accompanied by organ music or completely unaccompanied, sets the tone for the celebration. I believe that the entrance, communion and recessional hymns should be allowed in either Latin or the vernacular. The offertory hymn, however, should be exclusively a Latin hymn or chant. This would provide a clear marker in preparation for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and allow an opportunity for a seamless transition from facing the people to standing “with the people”. I also pesonally agree that communion on the tongue, and kneeling for those physically able, is preferable.

With regard to the rest of the Cardinal’s statement, I am particularly encouraged by the noted desire to fully implement SC (and especially by the comment that this was brought on at the request of Pope Francis). This would almost certainly mean a greater use of Latin, Gregorian chant and polyphony. In my opinion this could be upheld while retaining the current structure of the OF and still allowing most of the Mass to be in the vernacular. Simply chanting the Sanctus/Benedictus and Agnus Dei, and perhaps also occasionally the Gloria, Credo and Pater Noster, could accomplish both aims in one shot. I also think it would be nice if the words of institution were to be prayed in Latin, primarily to highlight their importance, though I assume that such a proposition would meet more resistance in the beginning. I would also like to see a return to the traditional Offertory prayers and more frequent use of the Roman Canon, even in its abbreviated version, but that’s another thread. Just my opinion. YMMV.

 

[exnihilo]

It is if he leaves the sanctuary.

The priest is supposed to remain in the sanctuary and exchange the Peace only with those around him.

This socalizing Randolph describes does happen, and when it does, it’s extremely disruptive to the solemnity of the Mass, as close as it is to Communion.

That’s why I prefer that it be omitted, or even abolished. The simple “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum/ Et cum spiritu tuo” dialog is sufficient before jumping directly into the Agnus Dei.

I’d prefer it abolished. We were fortunate for a while to have a priest who omitted it. I think it is disruptive. It also doesn’t seem right when husbands and wives kiss each other or families embrace since they aren’t giving that same ‘sign of peace’ to others.

 

[GoGoDiego]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/cardinal-sarah-asks-priests-to-start-celebrating-mass-facing-east-this-advent/

I am not surprised. Would even the bishops here in the Philippines, who are pro-inculturation and give way to pastoral concerns so much that the liturgy is abused restore this? As a layperson, I doubt it.

Unless this becomes a law in force, chances are it won’t be done here (or only less) in the Philippines.

 

[exnihilo]

It’s interesting that people feel that a return to the old way will somehow magically make the Mass better and therefore the Church more holy.

To which I ask: Have we been doing it wrong all these years? Yes or no?

Liturgical “abuses” will still occur. It’s not as though the words ad orientem are a magical incantation that will make everyone a faithfully observant Catholic.

Like I said, I’m a conservative guy, I like tradition, and the tradition I’m accustomed to is the way the OF is now.

I mentioned it to my wife. Her immediate reaction was, “HA! Yeah, right.”

It’s not that the old way is better. It is a question of why are things done a certain way. There is a purpose behind every choice we make. There is a reason facing the people was promoted and there was a reason facing with the people was at one time most common.

What we see and hear directs us. This is why even in secular movies they chose a certain soundtrack. Music or the lack of music or any sound conveys something to us. This is why even in secular movies they chose to use certain colors. Drab colors can convey a sense of bleakness whereas vibrant colors a sense of hope and happiness. This isn’t magic but due to our human nature the dress, actions, orientations, music and art we choose does lead us.

 

[OraLabora]

I didn’t say that versus populum couldn’t be celebrated reverently. However, I stand behind my statement that I felt a palpable difference, other things being relatively equal.

You are in a rather enviable position of having Benedictine congregation where mass is offered reverently and beautifully. In many diocesan churches, I guarantee you will see some “entertainers.” I have seen them. I don’t intend to disparage any particular priest but such do exist.

I have seen “entertainers” but I have to admit even stretching my memory I have never seen one who was an “entertainer” at the Eucharistic Prayer other than perhaps trying to sing it off-key. Something I doubt ad orientem would help much.

A priest wanting to “entertain” at the Mass… and I do find it offensive that we should think that this is anything but a sporadic occurrence… will find other opportunities to do so, regardless of the orientation at the EP, and even regardless of the form of the Mass.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Can anybody suggest a book that discusses Vatican 2? And compares what the fathers actually wrote vs what the council implemented? And how it got so far away from what they wrote and what happened?

 

[phil19034]

I am endeavouring to understand, though, which value you are advocating for. If you are advocating what the Cardinal has articulated, then having concelebrants positioned where they are seen in OraLabora’s photo is contrary to the value that the Cardinal has articulated: that everyone is facing the same direction. I assume you are advocating that the Presider should be not facing the people?

I was liturgist once upon a time for these sorts of concelebration. Concelebrations such as a Chrism Mass or an Ordination were normally in spaces that were not designed for them or built for these once per year rare occurrences but rather had daily use in mind…so priests would concelebrate from the first pews because no other possibility really existed. But liturgically, that is not at all desirable since the sign should be clear that the presbyterate is separate and distinct from the laity in the nave.

A monastery, on the other hand, will have a daily conventual Mass that presumes all the monks who are priests have a place to concelebrate – and so the layout of the sanctuary should be built to achieve that.

Moreover, although most of the laity experience the liturgy as it is expressed either in their parish church or cathedral, that does not exhaust the expression of the liturgy. A monastic liturgy is properly oriented with the concern primarily, not to say all but exclusive, for the monastic chapter…laity, if they are present at all, is incidental. One should make a provision for them to have some presence, certainly, but the abbatial church is not about providing the liturgy and sacraments to laity or particularly accommodating them. They should, at best, be a teritiary consideration in the design and layout of the abbatial church.

Makes total sense. Thank you Father

 

[Randolph]

I have seen “entertainers” but I have to admit even stretching my memory I have never seen one who was an “entertainer” at the Eucharistic Prayer other than perhaps trying to sing it off-key. Something I doubt ad orientem would help much.

A priest wanting to “entertain” at the Mass… and I do find it offensive that we should think that this is anything but a sporadic occurrence… will find other opportunities to do so, regardless of the orientation at the EP, and even regardless of the form of the Mass.

I agree with you that for those priests who want to “entertain” will find ways to do it no matter what orientation is called for. They entertain even to a point that it becomes liturgical abuses. Ultimately, they put themselves and entertainment values first over and above Christ.

Having said that and to be fair to all priests, throughout my life, the vast, vast, vast majority of priests that I saw said Mass reverently and correctly. We must remember that and keep that in mind.

Personally, I am very excited about Cardinal Sarah’s call for ad orientem. I prefer ad orientem because it squarely puts the focus on Christ. I do feel and see that the priest himself and his guestures/actions at the altar are leading me and the prayers toward Christ.

 

[ProVobis]

I partially agree with you. I’m 33 and also have a preference for the TLM. Unfortunately, due to my work schedule, I am only able to get to the one TLM within a reasonable distance from my home about once a month. On the bright side, that particular Mass has many many young families in attendance, and enough demand for TLMs has recently emerged that a second Mass was started in another parish about an hour away. But I digress…

I don’t actually think that the EF and OF should switch places, as most Catholics will never go for it. The EF should stay as it is, but with wider availability (perhaps even requiring all seminarians to learn both forms). I agree however that, within the OF, bringing the clergy back to ad orientem for at least part of the Mass would be a great step. I would actually like to see the Offertory and the EP done ad orientem, with the option for versus populum during the rest of the Mass. I think we should also get away from the phrase “ad orientem” for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Some dislike the terms “ad Deum” or “ad Dominum” because they believe they detract from the idea that God is everywhere. I disagree, but it is what it is. Maybe we can use something like “cum populo” (or cum populum, my Latin cases are a little rusty so I don’t remember which is correct). Many disagree, but a change in the priest’s posture as he works his way towards the consecration would emphasize to me that something distinct and remarkable was about to occur. I understand that this is not the tradition for many monastic communities. In their case perhaps an exception could be carved out.

I’ll also touch on your comment about music because I can relate it to the issue at hand. Using doctrinally and seasonally appropriate hymns, either accompanied by organ music or completely unaccompanied, sets the tone for the celebration. I believe that the entrance, communion and recessional hymns should be allowed in either Latin or the vernacular. The offertory hymn, however, should be exclusively a Latin hymn or chant. This would provide a clear marker in preparation for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and allow an opportunity for a seamless transition from facing the people to standing “with the people”. I also pesonally agree that communion on the tongue, and kneeling for those physically able, is preferable.

With regard to the rest of the Cardinal’s statement, I am particularly encouraged by the noted desire to fully implement SC (and especially by the comment that this was brought on at the request of Pope Francis). This would almost certainly mean a greater use of Latin, Gregorian chant and polyphony. In my opinion this could be upheld while retaining the current structure of the OF and still allowing most of the Mass to be in the vernacular. Simply chanting the Sanctus/Benedictus and Agnus Dei, and perhaps also occasionally the Gloria, Credo and Pater Noster, could accomplish both aims in one shot. I also think it would be nice if the words of institution were to be prayed in Latin, primarily to highlight their importance, though I assume that such a proposition would meet more resistance in the beginning. I would also like to see a return to the traditional Offertory prayers and more frequent use of the Roman Canon, even in its abbreviated version, but that’s another thread. Just my opinion. YMMV.

Good points. And cum populo makes most sense.

 

[OraLabora]

Can anybody suggest a book that discusses Vatican 2? And compares what the fathers actually wrote vs what the council implemented? And how it got so far away from what they wrote and what happened?

For the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium is available on the Vatican website:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

This culminated in the promulgation (for the Mass) of the Roman Missal, and for the Divine Office, the Liturgy of the Hours.

General Instructions of the Roman Missal:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

The specific paragraph referring to Mass facing the people, in the Missal is 299:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html#II.ARRANGEMENT_OF_THE_SANCTUARY__FOR_THE_SACRED_SYNAXIS_(EUCHARISTIC_ASSEMBLY)

Also note the other indications concerning the altar.

Please note that a direct one-for-one comparison between SC and the Missal is not possible. SC set out the broad guidelines for the renovation of the liturgy. The task was then entrusted to a committee, the “Council for Implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy” under Mgr Annibale Bungini. The fruit of their work was the 1970 Missal. Another council, produced the Liturgy of the Hours as we now know it.

It is also important to note that the missal was approved by Paul VI himself, and he keenly followed the proceedings and examined many sides of the issue.

The issue of the direction of the priest in the EP would be broadly covered in SC by the directive requesting more active participation, for example:

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

and

1. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

The 1970 Missal is the fruit of this effort, and nothing in the Missal contradicts Sacrosanctum Concilium; it is the means chosen to implement SC. If the celebrant sticks to the Missal, then SC is being carried out faithfully.

Whether a priest follows or not the Missal is a disciplinary matter (and my experience is that they follow it more often than not). But when a priest elects to use one of the permitted options in the Missal, even if it is not the option we would prefer, then we have to accept that his choice is normative and not in any way wrong.