Cardinal Sarah praises ad orientem worship, suggests appendix to Roman Missal [CWN]

[CWN_News]

Paying tribute to the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy as a liturgical “Magna Carta,” Cardinal Robert Sarah called for a more faithful implementation of its …

More…

 

[ProVobis]

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, he emphasized, should not be read with a “hermeneutic of rupture.”

He is not the first to state this, but it needs to be restated by many more IMO.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Cardinal Sarah recalled the Council’s teaching that the faithful should “be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them,” and** said that the liturgy “must stop being a place of disobedience to the requirements of the Church." **

:clapping:

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

“It would be wrong to consider the extraordinary form of the Roman rite as coming from another theology,” he said. To manifest that the ordinary form and the extraordinary form are “in continuity and without opposition,” it would be “desirable” that there be an appendix in an upcoming edition of the Roman Missal that would permit celebrants in the ordinary form to use the penitential rite and the offertory of the extraordinary form.

Spera in Deo, qouniam ad hoc confitebor illi: salutare vultus mei, et Deus meus!

 

[Brendan_64]

Cardinal Sarah is a good man and what he says is very true.

But unless individual bishops make it crystal clear to their priests that the Liturgy must be followed as prescribed, without any deviation, and that there are consequences for deliberately failing to do so, things won’t change.

 

[outremer]

Wonderful! I hope they restore ad orientem worship, as our brother Eastern Catholic Churches have maintained this ancient liturgical practice. Versus populum was an unnecessary innovation that was not even mandated by Vatican II.

It really speaks to a modern iconoclasm that has plagued the church for 50 years.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

“The liturgy is essentially the action of Christ,”

I might be misunderstanding what the Cardinal is saying but, the liturgy is the action of the Father.

In the Mass, the Eucharistic prayers are not to Jesus, but to the Father and the priest is en persona, Jesus praying to the Father.

Also, God dwells in us all, so it is then fitting that Jesus i.e. the priest faces the people as Jesus faced the Apostles at the last supper and prayed to the Father for the bread and wine to be transformed into His body and blood.

Jim

 

[Pulvis]

I might be misunderstanding what the Cardinal is saying but, the liturgy is the action of the Father.

In the Mass, the Eucharistic prayers are not to Jesus, but to the Father and the priest is en persona, Jesus praying to the Father.

Also, God dwells in us all, so it is then fitting that Jesus i.e. the priest faces the people as Jesus faced the Apostles at the last supper and prayed to the Father for the bread and wine to be transformed into His body and blood.

Jim

Question: How do we know that? Also, it was customary at that time to recline at table, so should the Priest also be laying down?

Do not misunderstand, I am not trying to be snippy, but the Priest, in Person Chisti, is leading us in worshipping the Father, and offering the eternal sacrifice to Him. Should The Priest not lead by Facing the same direction as the Faithful?
Sacrosanctum Continuum did not suggest the changes that we have seen in the Mass. I fail to understand why this is such a point of contention.

 

[Sirach2]

Question: How do we know that? Also, it was customary at that time to recline at table, so should the Priest also be laying down?

Yes, it was customary to recline while eating. But during the consecration, we know that Jesus took bread and wine, gave thanks (to the Father) blessed it ( which was not done during the multiplication of the loaves) and distributed to His disciples. This would not have been done in a reclining position.

Should The Priest not lead by Facing the same direction as the Faithful?

Again, Jesus was facing his disciples. It was a horseshoe shape, so the head position Jesus occupied in the horseshoe, He was facing them all.

Sacrosanctum Continuum did not suggest the changes that we have seen in the Mass. I fail to understand why this is such a point of contention

This document denoted that a commission be established and the directives of the Council be implemented. You may want to refresh your understanding by reading it here. Note the reference to authority in the Introduction, article 2.

The instruction you find difficult is #91.
"The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people."

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Pulvis

Question: How do we know that? Also, it was customary at that time to recline at table, so should the Priest also be laying down?

Wouldn’t matter if they were reclining or sitting, the point is a matter of where Jesus was and where the Father was as is the case at Mass. God isn’t out in the cosmos, but omnipresent in each person and place. Jesus, is the Son and the priest does what the son did, which is face the people.

Do not misunderstand, I am not trying to be snippy, but the Priest, in Person Chisti, is leading us in worshipping the Father, and offering the eternal sacrifice to Him. Should The Priest not lead by Facing the same direction as the Faithful?
Sacrosanctum Continuum did not suggest the changes that we have seen in the Mass. I fail to understand why this is such a point of contention.

The sacrifice is a living sacrifice, which the priest in the person of Christ offers to the Father.

Have you ever noticed why the priest does not elevate the host higher than his head ?

This is because the son, or the priest, does not elevate Jesus above himself and God the Father is present in front of him, i.e. within the people and the entire space of the Church.

Now when the priest was ad orientem, he elevated the host high above his head. Many misunderstand why. This was not because God the Father is out in the cosmos, but because in the old days, the wealthy were able to pay for seats up front at Mass, where the poor had to sit or stand in the back. The priest elevated the host high up, so those in the back could see it.

The original idea of ad orientem was that the priest faced East, because Christ came out of the East, but it was merely symbolic East, not literal, as many Churches were constructed so that the priest could be facing northwest, literally.

At any rate, what the Church has decided is what stands, the priest faces the people, in most cases. The Pope’s have celebrated Mass facing the people, so I wouldn’t be expecting Pope Francis to change anything, because of Cadinal Sarah’s criticism.

Jim

 

[R_H_Benson]

I might be misunderstanding what the Cardinal is saying but, the liturgy is the action of the Father.

In the Mass, the Eucharistic prayers are not to Jesus, but to the Father and the priest is en persona, Jesus praying to the Father.

Also, God dwells in us all, so it is then fitting that Jesus i.e. the priest faces the people as Jesus faced the Apostles at the last supper and prayed to the Father for the bread and wine to be transformed into His body and blood.

Jim

The Mass is not primarily a re-enactment of the Last Supper meal, but a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

The Mass is the action of the Son offering Himself to the Father.

 

[R_H_Benson]

The instruction you find difficult is #91.
“The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.”

You are referring to #299.

This is what GIRM 299 really says:

Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.

The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You are referring to #299.

This is what GIRM 299 really says:

But Sirach is not quoting from the GIRM. You obviously did not follow the link provided.

Here it is again Inter oecumenici.

It was this document that came out of the commissions that were set up during/after the council, to implement changes.

 

[Sirach2]

You are referring to #299.

This is what GIRM 299 really says:

I’m aware of what the GIRM says, and what the CDW defined, since it has been discussed often here at CA. However, the initial understanding came much earlier and is the root cause of the changes. The mass may be celebrated lawfully in either posture, but most likely, it will not be changed from what we now have in the OF…

 

[R_H_Benson]

But Sirach is not quoting from the GIRM. You obviously did not follow the link provided.

Here it is again Inter oecumenici.

It was this document that came out of the commissions that were set up during/after the council, to implement changes.

Ahh, sorry I am posting from my phone and the link didn’t seem to be working! My bad. However, it appears evident in both the documents of the commission and the proper translation of the GIRM from the Latin emphasizes the permissibility of versus populum, not a universal mandate of it, as many believe to be the case.

 

[Sirach2]

Ahh, sorry I am posting from my phone and the link didn’t seem to be working! My bad. However, it appears evident in both the documents of the commission and the proper translation of the GIRM from the Latin emphasizes the permissibility of versus populum, not a universal mandate of it, as many believe to be the case.

You may need to note the dates of both the I.O.[1965] and the Notitiae at the bottom of your reference. It was initially believed to be a mandate until the CDW clarified it much later on.

**(Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Mass is not primarily a re-enactment of the Last Supper meal, but a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

The Mass is the action of the Son offering Himself to the Father.

It’s both.

“Do this in memory of me.”

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

FYI

GIRM = “General” Instruction of the Roman Missal."

General means it’s what is generally to be followed.

However, each Conference of Bishops will set norms as approved by the Vatican.

An example is Ad Orientem or Versus populum is set by the conference of Bishops, which for most parishes in the US, Versus Populum is the norm.

Also, religious orders will follow the GIRM including some of their own traditions.

I’ve seen too many people visit a monastery and think the monks were violating the GIRM.

Jim

 

[dans0622]

I might be misunderstanding what the Cardinal is saying but, the liturgy is the action of the Father.

…

Hello,

I direct you to Sacrosanctum concilium, n. 7, which discusses this matter: “Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ… From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others…”

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

Dan

 

[Brendan_64]

FYI
An example is Ad Orientem or Versus populum is set by the conference of Bishops, which for most parishes in the US, Versus Populum is the norm.

Is it? If that is the case then why are clergy entirely free to celebrate any Mass Ad Orientem, should they wish to do so, without the need for permission from anybody? As far as I am aware the direction in which a priest says Mass is not determined by their respective Bishops’ conference.

GIRM clearly states that, at certain points of the Mass, the priest actually turns to face the people: during the Greeting (GIRM 124); at the Pray, brethren (GIRM 146); before the Sign of Peace (GIRM 154); at the Agnus Dei (GIRM 157); at the Prayer after Communion (GIRM 165) and at the final blessing (GIRM 185).

If the norm is to say the entire Mass facing the people, then why would GIRM need to specifically state that at several point during the Mass that the priest should specifically fact the people?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan

Is it? If that is the case then why are clergy entirely free to celebrate any Mass Ad Orientem, should they wish to do so, without the need for permission from anybody? As far as I am aware the direction in which a priest says Mass is not determined by their respective Bishops’ conference.

A diocesan priest needs permission to celebrate the Mass Ad Orientem from the Bishop of that dioceses. They usually get it, but few request it in the first place.

A religious order in that dioceses does not require permission from the Bishop, but from the order’s head superior according to their own constitution.

GIRM clearly states that, at certain points of the Mass, the priest actually turns to face the people: during the Greeting (GIRM 124); at the Pray, brethren (GIRM 146); before the Sign of Peace (GIRM 154); at the Agnus Dei (GIRM 157); at the Prayer after Communion (GIRM 165) and at the final blessing (GIRM 185).

Again, the GIRM is a General Instruction of the Roman Missal, not an absolute instruction.

The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy clearly states that the norms are set by the conference of Bishops along with the local Bishop, according to Church law.

Jim