Cardinal Sarah: reaction to my ad orientem speech was ‘not always very accurate’

[_Abyssinia]

The cardinal said that his comments about the liturgy at a conference in London last month were misinterpreted

Cardinal Robert Sarah has said that comments he made during a conference in London earlier this year were not always interpreted accurately.

During his address to the clergy of the Archdiocese of Colombo, Sri Lanka, on ‘Liturgical Life and the Priesthood’, the Vatican’s liturgy chief said: “Last month, in London, I gave a presentation ‘Towards an authentic implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium’ … This talk received a lot of attention — some of it not always very accurate!”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/08/24/cardinal-sarah-reaction-to-my-ad-orientem-speech-was-not-always-very-accurate/

 

[jeannetherese]

From the article:
"He said: “In recent decades in some countries the Sacred Liturgy has become too anthropocentric; man not Almighty God has often become its focus. This archdiocese has had very fine archbishops, and I think that this problem is probably not a very large one here. However we must take care to form our people that God, not ourselves, is the focus of our worship.”

The cardinal continued by emphasising that that the liturgy is not a celebration of our own achievements but God’s love and mercy. He said: “We do not come to the Church to celebrate what we have done or who we are. Rather, we come to celebrate and give thanks for all that Almighty God has done, and continues in His love and mercy to do, for us.

“What He does in the liturgy is what is essential; what we do is to present our ‘first fruits’—the best that we can—in worship and adoration. When the modern liturgy is celebrated in the vernacular with the priest ‘facing the people’ there is a danger of man, even of the priest himself and of his personality, becoming too central."

 

[ClearWater]

Oh! Is that what he said? I agree.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

OK I don’t see where he corrected the misinterpretation of his call for priests to implement saying Mass Ad Orientum where ever possible ?

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

OK I don’t see where he corrected the misinterpretation of his call for priests to implement saying Mass Ad Orientum where ever possible ?

It’s interesting that he threw in the “vernacular” language for people to defend. I happen to agree with him. It does pose “a danger of man, even of the priest himself and of his personality, becoming too central.”

 

[Randolph]

OK I don’t see where he corrected the misinterpretation of his call for priests to implement saying Mass Ad Orientum where ever possible ?

Jim

Why would Cardinal Sarah even have to correct his opinion/statement to ask priests to say Mass Ad Orientem wherever possible? As a Prefect, Cardinal Sarah believes Ad Orientem is good for the Church and he wants to restore it. He has that right as a prefect to ask priests to do that. People can disagree with him on how he approached it, It was evident that people in higher position overruled him on the issue, and he had to back off. But Cardinal Sarah has done nothing wrong.

In fact, I applaud the good Cardinal for having the courage and conviction to put forth this issue. Ad Orientem has always been a good thing for the Church, and should not be ignored, cast aside or even looked down upon as a useless thing of the past. The vast number of saints experienced it. It has been around for almost two thousand years. It places God as the focus of liturgical worship and leaves little/no room for priests to inject himself into the Mass. It is a powerful symbol and message for the priest at Mass to lead his flock toward Christ who will come in the East. Just pause for a moment and think how beautiful and faithful that is.

Although there is a good majority of priests saying Mass facing the people with Christ as the focus, and saying Mass reverently and correctly (that’s wonderful), but there is so much room for priests to inject themselves into the Mass. As a prefect, Cardinal Sarah undoubtedly have seen many, many cases of liturgical abuses in Mass facing the people that, as a result, compelled him to encourage priests say Mass Ad Orientem whenever possible.

May God continue to bless Cardinal Sarah.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Why would Cardinal Sarah even have to correct his opinion/statement to ask priests to say Mass Ad Orientem wherever possible? As a Prefect, Cardinal Sarah believes Ad Orientem is good for the Church and he wants to restore it. He has that right as a prefect to ask priests to do that. .

Actually he doesn’t have that right.

Catholic Priests must follow the norms set by their Bishop. They can not ignore their Bishop and start following Cardinal Sarah’s recommendation.

Jim

 

[Randolph]

Actually he doesn’t have that right.

Catholic Priests must follow the norms set by their Bishop. They can not ignore their Bishop and start following Cardinal Sarah’s recommendation.

Jim

I disagree. Cardinal Sarah did not universally impose a new rule upon the priests. As a prefect, he asked them to. Priests and bishops may or may not follow it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I disagree. Cardinal Sarah did not universally impose a new rule upon the priests. As a prefect, he asked them to. Priests and bishops may or may not follow it.

That’s what the Vatican explained afterwards.

It was their way of tap dancing out of a sticky situation which Cardinal Sarah created.

Jim

 

[Randolph]

That’s what the Vatican explained afterwards.

It was their way of tap dancing out of a sticky situation which Cardinal Sarah created.

Jim

Again, I disagree. Cardnial Sarah did nothing wrong. Cardinal Sarah called/asked priests and bishops around the world to do Ad Orientem by Advent. And again, he did not universally imposed new rule. Perhaps a majority of bishops and priests would ignore his call/request completely. But then perhaps, many bishops would reconsider their position. Perhaps, many priests would heed his call and ask permission from their bishops to do so. This could also serve as a wake up call for many bishops and priests who had not thought or been educated about the beauty and deep meaning of ad orientem. There are already currently many, many priests throughout the world with permission from their bishops to say Mass ad Orientem.

Again, ad Orientem is a legal and respected practice of the Church. Mass is said ad Orientem everyday throughout the world. It is good and beautiful. Be not afraid.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Again, I disagree. Cardnial Sarah did nothing wrong. Cardinal Sarah called/asked priests and bishops around the world to do Ad Orientem by Advent. And again, he did not universally imposed new rule. Perhaps a majority of bishops and priests would ignore his call/request completely. But then perhaps, many bishops would reconsider their position. Perhaps, many priests would heed his call and ask permission from their bishops to do so. This could also serve as a wake up call for many bishops and priests who had not thought or been educated about the beauty and deep meaning of ad orientem. There are already currently many, many priests throughout the world with permission from their bishops to say Mass ad Orientem.

Again, ad Orientem is a legal and respected practice of the Church. Mass is said ad Orientem everyday throughout the world. It is good and beautiful. Be not afraid.

He only asked priests, not Bishops.

Also, whether you thing Ad Orientem is better, is debatable and not shared with the majority of Bishops, Priests and Catholics in the USA.

I never want to have the priest celebrating Mass with his back to me again.

I grew up with the TLM, and never want to go back.

Jim

 

[Randolph]

He only asked priests, not Bishops.

Also, whether you thing Ad Orientem is better, is debatable and not shared with the majority of Bishops, Priests and Catholics in the USA.

I never want to have the priest celebrating Mass with his back to me again.

I grew up with the TLM, and never want to go back.

Jim

1. Aren’t bishops also priests?
2. I said “it is wonderful” when in Facing the people priests say Mass with Christ as the focus, and when the Mass is said correctly and reverently. It’s just that there is so much room for priests/the congregation to inject themselves into the Mass–where the Lord must be the focus. Liturgical abuses are quite alarming;
3. Ad Orientem was the norm in the Church throughout its history until the 1970’s–almost two thousand years. Did all the priests, bishops, popes, and many (priestly) saints during this time have it wrong? Furthermore, currently Mass ad orientem is still said every day;
4. In ad Orientem, it is incorrect to say that the priest has his back to the people. Rather, it is the priest leading his flock toward the Lord who will come in the East; and
5. You may not like TLM and don’t want to go back. But many are thankful for Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio. What a gift it was to the Church. I attended TLM for the first time in the 1990’s. How the grace I received from attending TLM changed my spiritual life…

I do not wish to belabor my points any longer. Let’s move on.Thank you for your time.

 

[ProVobis]

He only asked priests, not Bishops.

Also, whether you thing Ad Orientem is better, is debatable and not shared with the majority of Bishops, Priests and Catholics in the USA.

I never want to have the priest celebrating Mass with his back to me again.

I grew up with the TLM, and never want to go back.

Jim

I wouldn’t worry.

 

[StAlphonsusMary]

He only asked priests, not Bishops.

Also, whether you thing Ad Orientem is better, is debatable and not shared with the majority of Bishops, Priests and Catholics in the USA.

I never want to have the priest celebrating Mass with his back to me again.

I grew up with the TLM, and never want to go back.

Jim

lol, that’s the opposite with many younger catholics nowadays.

I don’t think ad orientem is bad at all. It was used even in the Early Church

 

[JimR-OCDS]

lol, that’s the opposite with many younger catholics nowadays.

I don’t think ad orientem is bad at all. It was used even in the Early Church

Actually the early Church, i,e, first three centuries before Constantine legalized Christianity, Mass was celebrated with the priest facing the people, for Mass was celebrated in homes and secret places using a table for an altar and the people sat around the table.

The celebrant with his back to the people only began to become popular after Constantine legalized Christianity and donated public buildings to the Church for places of worship and training.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

blog.adw.org/2014/08/the-ancient-mass-in-the-house-churches-was-not-as-informal-as-many-think/

As you may know, the Catholic Faith was illegal in the Roman Empire prior to 313 AD, when the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan permitting the Christian Faith to flourish publicly. Prior to that time, Church buildings as we know them today were rare—Mass was usually celebrated in houses.

Now be careful here; these “houses” were usually rather sizable, with a central courtyard or large room that permitted something a little more formal than Mass “around the dining room table.” I remember being taught (incorrectly) that these early Masses were informal, emphasized a relaxed, communal quality, and were celebrated facing the people. Well, it turns out that really isn’t true. People didn’t just sit around a table or sit in circle—not at all. They sat or stood formally, and everyone faced in one direction: east.

In the drawing (to the right) you can see the layout of an ancient house church (actually more often called a Domus Dei (House of God)) drawn based on an excavated 3rd century house church in Dura-Europos (located in what is now today’s Syria). Click on the diagram for a clearer view. The assembly room is to the left and a priest or bishop is depicted conducting a liturgy (facing east) at an altar against the east wall. A baptistery is on the right and a deacon is depicted guarding the entrance door. The lonely-looking deacon in the back of the assembly hall is there to “preserve good order,” as you will read below. The photograph below shows the baptistery of the Dura-Europos house church.

What is remarkable about these early liturgies is how formal they were despite the fact that they were conducted under less-than-ideal circumstances. The following text is from the Didiscalia, a document written in about 250 AD. Among other things, it gives rather elaborate details about the celebration of the early Catholic Mass in these “house liturgies.”

(more)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

blog.adw.org/2014/08/the-ancient-mass-in-the-house-churches-was-not-as-informal-as-many-think/

Roman Houses were large, if they were of the aristocrat level of society, but most peasants especially those of the Middle East where Christianity began, lived in one room houses, with extended family members down to the 3rd cousins.

The Blessed Mother and Jesus most likely lived in such a home, which is why his cousins were referred to as brothers in the Gospels.

Jim

 

[LiamQ]

I never want to have the priest celebrating Mass with his back to me again.

Respectfully, Jim, I’m sure that you have your emotional and intellectual reasons for being disposed against Ad Orientem, but it is absolutely false to categorize it as you have. The Priest is not turned away from you as if that were the purpose of facing the rising sun. That is absolutely contrary to the theological understanding of that particular Liturgical tradition which was an overwhelming norm throughout history, the contrary of which has never been mandated but simply permitted. (I would even argue that the GIRM, which contains rubrics for the celebrant to turn towards the people a total of six times, as opposed to the Latin Mass’s eight, presupposes the *Ad Orientem *posture.) And moreover, insisting on that interpretation is, IMO, a means of controlling the discussion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Respectfully, Jim, I’m sure that you have your emotional and intellectual reasons for being disposed against Ad Orientem, but it is absolutely false to categorize it as you have. The Priest is not turned away from you as if that were the purpose of facing the rising sun. That is absolutely contrary to the theological understanding of that particular Liturgical tradition which was an overwhelming norm throughout history, the contrary of which has never been mandated but simply permitted. (I would even argue that the GIRM, which contains rubrics for the celebrant to turn towards the people a total of six times, as opposed to the Latin Mass’s eight, presupposes the *Ad Orientem *posture.) And moreover, insisting on that interpretation is, IMO, a means of controlling the discussion.

The priest’s faces the people, because at the Mass he is Christ en persona, and Christ faced the apostles instituting the Eucharist, as the apostles faced their congregations in remembrance of Him when celebrating the Mass.

The Church teaches that the priest facing the people is valid, and I say, its more valid than the practice of having his back to the people, which became a tradition as the Church grew into the west.

We can argue about it all day and nothing will change.

In fact, the Church has no intention of instituting a new regulation, per the OP article.

Jim

 

[otjm]

Again, I disagree. Cardnial Sarah did nothing wrong. Cardinal Sarah called/asked priests and bishops around the world to do Ad Orientem by Advent. And again, he did not universally imposed new rule.

And that is exactly the point - and why he got called on the carpet.

I don’t know that I would use the word “wrong” as it has too many implications. But as head of the dicastery, he is seen world-wide as speaking on behalf o the dicastery, not as an individual. People watch very carefully what heads of dicasteries say, as it is an indicator of what actions the dicastery is going to be taking. In this case, the dicastery is not heading in that direction, and his comments if interpreted as directed to priests is a bypassing of the authority of their bishops.

If he was just fine and dandy in what he said, then there was no reason for him to forthwith have a personal chat with the Pope, as well as a number of other Cardinals.

It is one thing for a priest, or a liturgical theologian or even a bishop to float an issue such as this. It is a completely different thing for the head of the dicastery to float this. He has not served in his position that long, and undoubtedly did not understand what a flap he could create; but I suspect he is a bit wiser now as to how people react.

Perhaps a majority of bishops and priests would ignore his call/request completely. But then perhaps, many bishops would reconsider their position. Perhaps, many priests would heed his call and ask permission from their bishops to do so. This could also serve as a wake up call for many bishops and priests who had not thought or been educated about the beauty and deep meaning of ad orientem.

I doubt there is more than maybe one percent of the approximately 5,100 bishops of the world who are ignorant of liturgical postures. More likely one tenth of one percent.

There are already currently many, many priests throughout the world with permission from their bishops to say Mass ad Orientem.

Source, please?