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

[Denise1957]

The good Cardinal said…“Joyful fear requires silence in the presence of the divine majesty. It is often forgotten that sacred silence is one of the means set forth by the Council to encourage participation.”

The problem is of course that the Ordinary form of the Mass was not designed to have or encourage silence. It was designed to have nearly continual verbal participation, either by the priest, or by the faithful responding, or by the choir singing and encouraging the faithful to sing.

The Cardinal also mentions that the faithful should “sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertains to them.” The problem I see with this is that, again, the Ordinary form of the Mass was designed with the intention that the faithful should understand every word at Mass, which would not be the case if Latin responses were given by the faithful.

I have to wonder about the attempts to make the New Mass (OF) into something that the framers of the New Mass never intended. And…it might not be fair to push it on those Catholics who are not used to it.

There was a series of articles on this very issue by the Latin Mass society int the UK, which was posted here on another thread recently. I think that it made a lot of sense as to why it might not be a good idea to change the OF into something it was never meant to be.

Here’s the series of articles from LMS, in case anyone is interested in learning more about this POV:

lmschairman.org/search/label/Death%20of%20the%20Reform%20of%20the%20Reform

 

[Sirach2]

Regardless, what is your goal in denying an objective upward trend in the overall number of TLMs offered?

Truth in touting the TLM?
I still fail to find evidence that these parishes are “growing”. Your comment that these masses are full is to be expected, since only three parishes out of 225 in Philly have an active TLM, and participants will drive miles to attend one. This is hardly a good representation, and is similar to other dioceses all across the US.

I mentioned earlier that many parishes are closing. These headlines in their home page verify the truth of it.
Archdiocese of Philadelphia: reviewing 14 more parishes for possible merger, closure

Further in the article, mention was made that 16 have been closed already.

At least two of the 16 parishes that closed over the summer were preparing to appeal directly to the Vatican. Since the archdiocese began merging parishes in 2010, authorities in Rome have not overturned any of the decisions.

There simply are not enough priests to accommodate parishes, let alone the TLM. I did not review Harrisburg, for I suspect I will find more of the same. It is nation-wide, and increasing rapidly. I do appreciate that you love the TLM, but could we please have a little honesty when you report statistics?

That being said, I’m unsubscribing to your posts.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Truth in touting the TLM?
I still fail to find evidence that these parishes are “growing”. Your comment that these masses are full is to be expected, since only three parishes out of 225 in Philly have an active TLM, and participants will drive miles to attend one. This is hardly a good representation, and is similar to other dioceses all across the US.

You are looking at it wrong. 10 years ago there was NO ONE attending a TLM. Now there are hundreds, with more and more discovering it. Don’t be so utilitarian in your analysis. What matters is the trend in growth. It is slow but sure. I know this because I am witnessing it happen.

I mentioned earlier that many parishes are closing. These headlines in their home page verify the truth of it.
Archdiocese of Philadelphia: reviewing 14 more parishes for possible merger, closure

Further in the article, mention was made that 16 have been closed already.

Trust me, I am familiar with the closing of parishes here. These parishes are not closing so much from a lack of priests as from a lack of parishioners and the accompanying financial woes. The demographics of the Archdiocese have dramatically shifted so that the Catholic population is in the suburbs.

There simply are not enough priests to accommodate parishes, let alone the TLM. I did not review Harrisburg, for I suspect I will find more of the same. It is nation-wide, and increasing rapidly. I do appreciate that you love the TLM, but could we please have a little honesty when you report statistics?

There are 17 priests in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia who are capable of offering the TLM, and it goes without saying that they wish to offer it whenever they can. This is a fact. I did not make this number up.

There is a shortage of priests in Harrisburg. That is true. But Harrisburg, too, has many excellent Seminarians approaching ordination, several of whom I know personally who are attached to the TLM.

Please describe to me how I have been dishonest in anyway?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The good Cardinal said…“Joyful fear requires silence in the presence of the divine majesty. It is often forgotten that sacred silence is one of the means set forth by the Council to encourage participation.”

The problem is of course that the Ordinary form of the Mass was not designed to have or encourage silence. It was designed to have nearly continual verbal participation, either by the priest, or by the faithful responding, or by the choir singing and encouraging the faithful to sing.

The Cardinal also mentions that the faithful should “sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertains to them.” The problem I see with this is that, again, the Ordinary form of the Mass was designed with the intention that the faithful should understand every word at Mass, which would not be the case if Latin responses were given by the faithful.

I have to wonder about the attempts to make the New Mass (OF) into something that the framers of the New Mass never intended. And…it might not be fair to push it on those Catholics who are not used to it.

There was a series of articles on this very issue by the Latin Mass society int the UK, which was posted here on another thread recently. I think that it made a lot of sense as to why it might not be a good idea to change the OF into something it was never meant to be.

Here’s the series of articles from LMS, in case anyone is interested in learning more about this POV:

lmschairman.org/search/label/Death%20of%20the%20Reform%20of%20the%20Reform

I don’t think we should be arguing over which format of the Mass is better.

The Holy Spirit guided the Church in Vatican II and gave us the Novus Ordo, which became the ordinary.

Unless the Holy Spirit guides the Church into something different, please don’t try and trash the ordinary format.

Jim

 

[Denise1957]

Unless the Holy Spirit guides the Church into something different, please don’t try and trash the ordinary format.
Jim

Please explain how it is that I’m trashing the ordinary format. I was doing no such thing. Nor did I say anything about which format is better. Did you read the post?

 

[ProVobis]

The problem I see with this is that, again, the Ordinary form of the Mass was designed with the intention that the faithful should understand every word at Mass, which would not be the case if Latin responses were given by the faithful.

It was probably designed that way but the current English translation from the Latin has many not understanding “consubstantial” or “and with your spirit” among a lot of other phrases. But then a one-size-fits-all English for all Anglophones is not a true vernacular. Unlike, for example, in Nigeria, where Cardinal Arinze reported there are 240 vernaculars. And interestingly enough they also do Gregorian chant in Africa and the Church is growing there.

 

[ProVobis]

The Holy Spirit guided the Church in Vatican II and gave us the Novus Ordo, which became the ordinary.

Unless the Holy Spirit guides the Church into something different…

I suppose you could use that argument, but remember the Protestants also believe the Holy Spirit guides them.

 

[Denise1957]

It was probably designed that way but the current English translation from the Latin has many not understanding “consubstantial” or “and with your spirit” among a lot of other phrases. But then a one-size-fits-all English for all Anglophones is not a true vernacular. Unlike, for example, in Nigeria, where Cardinal Arinze reported there are 240 vernaculars. And interestingly enough they also do Gregorian chant in Africa and the Church is growing there.

Do you know how the 240 vernaculars are accommodated in Africa? I wonder if they have missals for each of them, or not. I would guess not, but I’ve no idea, of course.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Please explain how it is that I’m trashing the ordinary format. I was doing no such thing. Nor did I say anything about which format is better. Did you read the post?

Go back and read your own post.

Jim

 

[Denise1957]

Go back and read your own post.

Jim

But you said that I was trashing the OF. I’m not seeing that at all. Why would you not want to explain your statement? It isn’t very nice to make accusations without explaining them.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I suppose you could use that argument, but remember the Protestants also believe the Holy Spirit guides them.

So you’re comparing Vatican II to the Protestant Reformation ?

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

So you’re comparing Vatican II to the Protestant Reformation ?

How do you draw that conclusion? Unless you disagree with the ecumenism Vatican II preached.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

How do you draw that conclusion? Unless you disagree with the ecumenism Vatican II preached.

You’re the one who said the Protestants could say the same for themselves when you addressed my post about Vatican II being guided by the Holy Spirit.

You then suggested that because Protestants believe they’re guided by the Holy Spirit, Vatican II must not be no more guided by the Holy Spirit than they are.

I disagree.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

You’re the one who said the Protestants could say the same for themselves when you addressed my post about Vatican II being guided by the Holy Spirit.

You then suggested that because Protestants believe they’re guided by the Holy Spirit, Vatican II must not be no more guided by the Holy Spirit than they are.

I disagree.

Jim

With due respect, I think you got it all wrong.

If there is one thing I learned from Br. Jr it is this. We are not responsible for the actions of our parents and ancestors. True, today’s Protestants delve in many heresies but that doesn’t make them heretics. Vatican II, of which you claim to be a follower, recognized this. So certainly if you believe (as I do too) that Vatican II was guided by the Holy Spirit, then certainly you must allow Protestants to believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit as well. The Protestant Reformation was a different animal.

And, again, I must bow out of further discussions with you. I will have to put you on temporary ignore, of course.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

With due respect, I think you got it all wrong.

If there is one thing I learned from Br. Jr it is this. We are not responsible for the actions of our parents and ancestors. True, today’s Protestants delve in many heresies but that doesn’t make them heretics. Vatican II, of which you claim to be a follower, recognized this. So certainly if you believe (as I do too) that Vatican II was guided by the Holy Spirit, then certainly you must allow Protestants to believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit as well. The Protestant Reformation was a different animal.

And, again, I must bow out of further discussions with you. I will have to put you on temporary ignore, of course.

I do believe that Protestants can be guided by the Holy Spirit, but I’m not the one who compared their belief to Vatican II being guided by the Holy Spirit, you did, what your reason for do so, I’m not sure.

It suggests that you were being skeptical of my statement about the Holy Spirit guiding Vatican II, otherwise, why even mention the protestants ?

Jim

 

[R_H_Benson]

I do believe that Protestants can be guided by the Holy Spirit, but I’m not the one who compared their belief to Vatican II being guided by the Holy Spirit, you did, what your reason for do so, I’m not sure.

It suggests that you were being skeptical of my statement about the Holy Spirit guiding Vatican II, otherwise, why even mention the protestants ?

Jim

I respect your opinions, and of course, because it is a valid Ecumenical Council of the Church, the Holy Spirit worked in Vatican II. This means that the document *Sacrosanctum Concilium *which was approved by the Council Fathers and promulgated by Pope Paul VI certainly was produced with the aid of the Holy Spirit. However, I think it is a stretch to say that the same divine guidance was also given to the Consilium appointed by Pope Paul VI to put the document into action. Certainly, no one is obligated to believe that it was. Catholics are free to believe that there were many imprudent decisions made by the Consilium, as well as too many concessions made by Rome regarding the observance of the rubrics in the years following the Council that led to the disintegration of the Liturgy. Thanks be to God, many of the issues have been rectified thanks in large part to the efforts of Pope St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But many have become ingrained into the Liturgy and accepted as norms.

Now - in no way can the argument be made that the changes to the Liturgy that were at first denounced as abuses by the Holy See, but slowly, because of large scale dissent and disobedience, were normalized and made licit be said to be the true fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Nor is anyone obliged to look at the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and affirm that it is being celebrated in the manner that the Council Fathers intended. Even a cursory glance at Sacrosanctum Concilium makes it evident that the Liturgy we have today does not reflect the will of the Council in many of its aspects.

And this is precisely why Cardinal Sarah is coming out in support of the true spirit of the Council. So, in the end, I would argue that we as Catholics certainly have an obligation to accept the Ordinary Form in its current state, regardless of our disposition towards the normalized abuses, but at the same time no one is allowed to force us to have a great affection for the Liturgy in its current form.

That is why so many tradition minded Catholics are so grateful to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for Summorum Pontificum, and hopeful that Cardinal Sarah will continue his push for allowing the old penitential rite and offertory prayers into the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, as well as promoting the benefits and heritage of* ad orientem *worship.

 

[dans0622]

… I have to wonder about the attempts to make the New Mass (OF) into something that the framers of the New Mass never intended. And…it might not be fair to push it on those Catholics who are not used to it.

There was a series of articles on this very issue by the Latin Mass society int the UK, which was posted here on another thread recently. I think that it made a lot of sense as to why it might not be a good idea to change the OF into something it was never meant to be.

…

Hello,

Interesting idea. I think a better argument can be made about silence–that’s was less emphasized in the late 60’s/early 70’s (what the Cardinal said about Latin, though, has been said consistently, in document after document, for the past 50 years). In general, I’m not sure I agree with the idea that “the framers of the New Mass never intended” for there to be silence and Latin in the Mass. Vatican II certainly did. The first edition of the GIRM (1975) also did. Every edition of the GIRM has.

That being said, I do agree that it can cause turmoil to introduce Latin/silence to those who aren’t used to it.

Dan

 

[Denise1957]

Hello,

Interesting idea. I think a better argument can be made about silence–that’s was less emphasized in the late 60’s/early 70’s (what the Cardinal said about Latin, though, has been said consistently, in document after document, for the past 50 years). In general, I’m not sure I agree with the idea that “the framers of the New Mass never intended” for there to be silence and Latin in the Mass. Vatican II certainly did. The first edition of the GIRM (1975) also did. Every edition of the GIRM has.

That being said, I do agree that it can cause turmoil to introduce Latin/silence to those who aren’t used to it.

Dan

Yes, the Council absolutely did call for at least Latin (I don’t recall anything about silence in the documents, but may have missed it). That the committee that formed the OF after Vll didn’t follow Vll guidelines is one of the issues, at least for me. I think that if the guidelines were followed, the OF would look different.

That being said, I can sympathize with the Cardinal’s views about incorporating Latin and silence into the OF. Until I read that article from LMS, I thought the same thing, and have been supportive of my parish’s effort to do this at one of our Sunday Masses. Now I’m not so sure.

I have noticed that at my parish, at the Mass that uses a lot of Latin for the responses, that the laity don’t often respond in Latin. They just stand there, and look a bit confused. So I have to wonder, really, if it’s a good idea to force Latin on them, when they’re used to the vernacular.

 

[Brendan_64]

I have noticed that at my parish, at the Mass that uses a lot of Latin for the responses, that the laity don’t often respond in Latin. They just stand there, and look a bit confused. So I have to wonder, really, if it’s a good idea to force Latin on them, when they’re used to the vernacular.

Good for your priest for using Latin in the Mass. I think it needs active education of the laity by the clergy on this. If they haven’t used Latin in the Mass themselves for decades (if ever) then they need supportive education by the clergy.

 

[twf]

At first hand, while it may be gratifying for you to boast, I do not believe 3 or 4 parishes out of 85 presents a greater portion of latin masses in your diocese than it does similarly in the US. I stand by my research, that there are scant or next to none available in major dioceses.

Not only are TLM’s scant, many have been “discontinued” as you will note on this listing from Ecclesia Dei.

There may be many reasons for this in each diocese, and I won’t speculate on those I’m not familiar with — but whether it is the lack of a “stable group” who desire it, or the lack of priests to celebrate it, then the phenomenon is pretty much universal.

Again, this is not a huge concern to me, when compared to what we are facing soon with the many priests who will reach retirement age, without new seminarians to replace them.

I agree that it is a minority of parishes that offer the EF in Vancouver, but that doesn’t mean it is insignificant. The number has certainly increased in the past decade and there is no reason to believe that trend won’t continue (even if it is gradual, relatively slow growth). Younger priests tend to be more interested in the EF in my experience. I also wasn’t speaking strictly of the EF mass. That was one example. I also spoke more generally of OF masses where the priest draws on many of the optional “more traditional” elements (such as the faithful receiving kneeling at the altar rail…chanting the propers…using incense…including a bit of Latin…or even ad Orientem). I definitely see more and more of that at various parishes. I am not by any means an EF-only guy. Last Friday evening I was at an OF mass that was simply breath-taking…it was celebrated Ad Orientem with the Ordinary and Propers in Latin and the Scripture readings in English. It was completely chanted. Incorporation of beautiful, traditional elements but still faithful to the intent of Vatican II (which did call for Gregorian Chant to have primacy of place and for the use of Latin to be retained even if the vernacular was also introduced).

That being said, I never suggested that the EF should be imposed. I simply said that it is an option for priests without specific permission from the bishop and that in general access to it has increased. Certainly it may not be practical in many dioceses at present… but even then, there is no reason why more traditional elements can’t be introduced into the OF. In my experience while older priests rarely if ever chant, younger priests almost universally do. That may not be the case everywhere, but it has been my experience.

That being sa