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

[ProVobis]

That’s my point, so why are some people so upset with the concept that the priest might face east and look with them, rather than at them?

Not quite accurate if the priest has his back to the crucifix, although I admit it doesn’t occur in every case.

 

[otjm]

“Many” is quite appropriate to describe the number in “hundreds”. I did not use it in the context of a percentage of US or worldwide priests as you were assuming. By the way, I also stand by my assertion that Cardinal Sarah did nothing wrong. You may disagree with me, and you may choose to make you case. Let the validity of your rationale speak for itself. But the use of sarcasm and belittling tactic are unbecoming and unproductive. I hope we can do better than that. The use of facts and/or hyperbole…hmmm???

Yes, I am very enthusiastic and thankful to Pope Benedict for his Motu Proprio. It will take time for TLM to take its rightful place in the Church again. I have faith in Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church and the gate of hell will not prevail.

I used no sarcasm in my post. I used facts, and I was not the one who was puffing things up.

You may wish and hope that the Ef is going to grow, but you need to do a bit more than that, as currently, out of approximately 17,300 parishes in the US fewer than 500 offer the EF in any degree - that includes some parishes which are EF parishes, some that offer one every Sunday, some every other Sunday, some once a month, and one (in Oregon) tht offers it once every 6 months. That works out to less than 3% of parishes offering it at all.

I can understand your love for the EF; I served every position avaiable as an altar boy, from candle bearer to altar server to thurifer to Master of Ceremonies, and entered college seminary before Vatican 2 was completed.

Your analysis of how you used the word “many” is not even weak, as the word needs to be seen in context. I applied the context which you did not, and I stand by my post.

 

[otjm]

\ So when the priest faces east at the consecration, it is a reminder that the mass celebrates a historical event which happened in the east.

Well, at least we have a new and different explanation of ad orientem, although I doubt there are too many liturgists who will sign on the it.

 

[otjm]

That’s my point, so why are some people so upset with the concept that the priest might face east and look with them, rather than at them?

Most people are not upset about the issue, because they are satisfied with the ad populum position. The only ones who get upset are those who are stressed out about ad populum, and resort to remarking about the priest in some sort of popularity contest or having a “look at me” attitude - which most everyone else would find strange, at the minimum.

 

[JimG]

In a recent wide-ranging teleconference reported on in Catholic World Report, Cardinal Raymond Burke is quoted with respect to Cardinal Sarah:

“And so Cardinal Sarah”, said Cardinal Burke, “I couldn’t agree more with him,” adding, "I trust that with time people will recognize that the criticism which was lodged against him is completely unjustified.”

Source

 

[Randolph]

I used no sarcasm in my post. I used facts, and I was not the one who was puffing things up.

You may wish and hope that the Ef is going to grow, but you need to do a bit more than that, as currently, out of approximately 17,300 parishes in the US fewer than 500 offer the EF in any degree - that includes some parishes which are EF parishes, some that offer one every Sunday, some every other Sunday, some once a month, and one (in Oregon) tht offers it once every 6 months. That works out to less than 3% of parishes offering it at all.

I can understand your love for the EF; I served every position avaiable as an altar boy, from candle bearer to altar server to thurifer to Master of Ceremonies, and entered college seminary before Vatican 2 was completed.

Your analysis of how you used the word “many” is not even weak, as the word needs to be seen in context. I applied the context which you did not, and I stand by my post.

So you took the liberty to assume the context of my statement and applied that context upon my analysis. Then proceed to critize me based on your assumed context which you conveniently assigned for me. What makes you think that is ever appropriate to do that?

This is the context which I was talking about–a context which you incorrectly assumed. Since the 1970’s, the Vetus Ordo/Tridebtine Mass was basically suppressed, and was only allowed to be said with special permission. After 30 years or so, the number of priests that knew how say it went down dramatically, while new priests were basically not trained doing it. The number continued to go down year after year until Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum. After this Motu Proprio, the number of priests trained to do the Tridentine Mass increased for the first time in over 30 years. This was a significant reversal in decades. Hundreds (many) of priest (likely more by now) have been trained to say the Tridentine Mass.

If you want to take the context of my statement beyond that, feel free to do so, but don’t assign your assumed context to me.

 

[felsguy]

I was taught and believe that God is everywhere, at all times. So if the priest faces east as a symbolic act of reverence, why would that be upsetting? All liturgy, all sacraments use physical elements to represent metaphysical concepts. The water at baptism doesn’t wash away our sins, it is a physical representation of a spiritual reality. **So when the priest faces east at the consecration, it is a reminder that the mass celebrates a historical event which happened in the east.
**
Fine to prefer the priest facing the congregation, but to be upset because the priest faces the same direction the congregation faces, seems a bit too sensitive to me. And answering a question with a question is a good way of not having to examine your preferences.

Whoa. I guess that it is true that one can learn something new every day.

Let me rephrase that. I guess it’s true that one can hear something new every day.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not a matter of favorite language but what it is.

You can translate Shakespeare into Chinese and someone in China can even understand the plot but he misses the full impact of the language Shakespeare wrote in. Words have meaning and powers associated with them. Just like posture of the priest.

I would be willing to bet that the Chinese translation of Shakespeare is better understood by the Chinese people than 99% of Catholic would understand the Latin of the Mass. If the point is that people miss something of the original in a translation, then how is it logical to prefer that they miss a whole lot more than just a little of the meaning?

Unless you are going back, not to the people, but to God, in which case my original point holds. God does not have a language into which he is more likely to “grant” Transubstantiation, which might make Him happier, or clarifies some theological point for Him.

So for whom is the Latin, the laity or for God? If for the laity, then as St. Paul said, “How will they understand unless one is there to interpret.” If for God, how does it benefit God?

I do not mean to disparage Latin in the Mass, only to say that I find the idea that some how the vernacular is anthropocentric illogical.

 

[ProVobis]

I would be willing to bet that the Chinese translation of Shakespeare is better understood by the Chinese people than 99% of Catholic would understand the Latin of the Mass.

Cliff’s Notes is probably better understood too but it’s just not Shakespeare, who I presume chose his words and phrases carefully. If it takes many readings of Hamlet, for example, to appreciate the deeper meanings of the words, so be it.

Take the word “Sabaoth” which is so powerful in itself the Latin Mass left it untranslated. Does “Hosts” really improve on that power and meaning? Why can’t all Catholics just accept the “Dominus Deus Sabaoth” as another Mass phrase they can add to their repertoire? There are only 600 some distinct Latin words in the EF and most are easy; it’s not like we have to be Latinists or Jeopardy champions in order to appreciate a Latin Mass.

As I said before words have meanings and power and even synonyms have subtle differences, otherwise they’d all be interchangeable, which in most cases they’re not. Look in the dictionary for “assume” for example, and you may find “presume” as its definition. But that’s not of much help if it’s the other way around for the definition of “presume.” Maybe we’re more familiar with the word “assume,” I don’t know. But we are steered incorrectly if we just interchange those two words in our minds. By the same token any English translation of “Sabaoth” is bound to steer us away from the power inherent in the word. Much is lost in any translation; much is lost in any paraphrase of Shakespeare. But that’s not to say we can’t try to explain it in modern English terms. English is a very useful analytical tool but it shouldn’t lead us to translation wars, which is exactly how the vernacular Mass came about.

I’ll agree it is somewhat odd that the vernacular and orientation were mentioned in the same sentence. But as long as he did, he could have also mentioned low-tones and other features of the Latin Mass, which is I suspect the greater fear than just ad orientem.

But I wouldn’t worry about it. People are just too stuck on “God Lord of Hosts” in their belief system. Along with their desire for audibleness of the Canon among other conveniences.

 

[Randolph]

For those of you who are interested in knowing the number of the parishes regularly offering the Tridentine Mass on Sundays in recent years.(Keep in mind Pope JP2 granted in the Indult in 1984, and Pope Benedict XVI issued the Summorum Pontificum in 2007.) These numbers were put together by Una Voce America (UVA).

Number of parishes in the US regularly offering Tirdebtine Mass on Sundays:

–1988: 10
–1998: 130
–2006: 220
–2007: 230
–2010: 400
–2013: 420

Also, as of 2013, there were about 1,000 priests in the US trained to say the Tridentine Mass. Considering the availability of the Mass was virtually non-existent in the early 1980’s. It is moving in the right direction.

You may find out more info about these numbers by clicking on this link. Scroll down the page to see the graph.

reginamag.com/update-latin-mass-america-today/

 

[otjm]

So you took the liberty to assume the context of my statement and applied that context upon my analysis. Then proceed to critize me based on your assumed context which you conveniently assigned for me. What makes you think that is ever appropriate to do that?

This is the context which I was talking about–a context which you incorrectly assumed. Since the 1970’s, the Vetus Ordo/Tridebtine Mass was basically suppressed, and was only allowed to be said with special permission. After 30 years or so, the number of priests that knew how say it went down dramatically, while new priests were basically not trained doing it. The number continued to go down year after year until Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum. After this Motu Proprio, the number of priests trained to do the Tridentine Mass increased for the first time in over 30 years. This was a significant reversal in decades. Hundreds (many) of priest (likely more by now) have been trained to say the Tridentine Mass.

If you want to take the context of my statement beyond that, feel free to do so, but don’t assign your assumed context to me.

Hundreds of priest are not many in the scale of the number of priests.

And less than 3% of all parishes having a Mass in the EF is also minuscule; particularly when one considers that many of the parishes which have 1 EF Mass on a weekend will also have one or more OF Masses that same weekend.

I have not criticized you (another word you misuse); I have corrected you. It appears you don’t like being corrected; if you wish to carry on a monologue that is fine; if you want to carry on a discussion, then I will reiterate what a series of high school teachers had for a mantra in the mid '60’s - and that was “Define your terms”. Using terms of “many”, and “significant” have context; it is up to you to put them in the context you want, and that is not done by simply using them.

Pope Benedict did not use the word “demand” in relation to people requesting the EF, but he made it clear that it had to be more than a handful here and a few there before the matter would be addressed. He also made clear that priests could not be forced to say the EF, but rather, someone needed to be found who was willing to say the EF for that stable group. That in part appears to be some of the reason that so few priests say the EF (a point that Don Ruggero made); they appear to not be interested or motivated to say it. There are small groups who do have a commitment - a charism if you will - for the EF; but if I were to talk about those groups making it sound as if “many” were pursuing training in the EF and a future committed to it, most people would not think that “many” were doing so, if it were put into the context of how many priests don’t say it.

I gave you facts, and you are talking all around the issue. There are, in fact, few priests qualified to say the EF, out of the number of priests either in the US, or world wide.

I am glad that you have found the EF and that you find it best for your spirituality, as there are not that many available. God bless you on your journey, and may it be fruitful.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I would be willing to bet that the Chinese translation of Shakespeare is better understood by the Chinese people than 99% of Catholic would understand the Latin of the Mass. If the point is that people miss something of the original in a translation, then how is it logical to prefer that they miss a whole lot more than just a little of the meaning?

Unless you are going back, not to the people, but to God, in which case my original point holds. God does not have a language into which he is more likely to “grant” Transubstantiation, which might make Him happier, or clarifies some theological point for Him.

So for whom is the Latin, the laity or for God? If for the laity, then as St. Paul said, “How will they understand unless one is there to interpret.” If for God, how does it benefit God?

I do not mean to disparage Latin in the Mass, only to say that I find the idea that some how the vernacular is anthropocentric illogical.

This is very well said.

I remember Cardinal Leger speaking about what moved and inspired him in his interventions concerning Sacrosanctum Concilium and use of the vernacular. It was the church of St-François-Xavier in Kahnawake. I had the privilege of celebrating Mass there during a visit, knowing full well it played a very key role and seeing the things of which His Eminence spoke.

The Council Fathers were not taking phrases out of the air. They did not choose expressions to no purpose. What they wrote was exactly expressive of what they saw, what they experienced with their people and what they wanted…and what needed corrected because it was woefully inadequate.

As, for example, that people should not be present as silent spectators…this directly emerges from the dialogue Masses of the liturgical movement, which the Council Fathers recognised as superior to a congregation being silent

*30. 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 /…/

1. The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people’s parts
2. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation
3. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all
4. For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree
5. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary

1. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years
2. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, “the common prayer” or “the prayer of the faithful.” By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world*

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Cliff’s Notes is probably better understood too but it’s just not Shakespeare, who I presume chose his words and phrases carefully. If it takes many readings of Hamlet, for example, to appreciate the deeper meanings of the words, so be it.

Take the word “Sabaoth” which is so powerful in itself the Latin Mass left it untranslated. Does “Hosts” really improve on that power and meaning? Why can’t all Catholics just accept the “Dominus Deus Sabaoth” as another Mass phrase they can add to their repertoire? There are only 600 some distinct Latin words in the EF and most are easy; it’s not like we have to be Latinists or Jeopardy champions in order to appreciate a Latin Mass.

As I said before words have meanings and power and even synonyms have subtle differences, otherwise they’d all be interchangeable, which in most cases they’re not. Look in the dictionary for “assume” for example, and you may find “presume” as its definition. But that’s not of much help if it’s the other way around for the definition of “presume.” Maybe we’re more familiar with the word “assume,” I don’t know. But we are steered incorrectly if we just interchange those two words in our minds. By the same token any English translation of “Sabaoth” is bound to steer us away from the power inherent in the word. Much is lost in any translation; much is lost in any paraphrase of Shakespeare. But that’s not to say we can’t try to explain it in modern English terms. English is a very useful analytical tool but it shouldn’t lead us to translation wars, which is exactly how the vernacular Mass came about.

I’ll agree it is somewhat odd that the vernacular and orientation were mentioned in the same sentence. But as long as he did, he could have also mentioned low-tones and other features of the Latin Mass, which is I suspect the greater fear than just ad orientem.

But I wouldn’t worry about it. People are just too stuck on “God Lord of Hosts” in their belief system. Along with their desire for audibleness of the Canon among other conveniences.

What matters are the decisions that came to enacted at as well as after the Council by the Pope and by the world’s bishops concerning what they determined to be best. The decision was and is theirs.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Not quite accurate if the priest has his back to the crucifix, although I admit it doesn’t occur in every case.

I quite often have a crucifix or even an entire Calvary scene behind me as I offer Mass. It has never caused me the least disturbance or qualm.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well, at least we have a new and different explanation of ad orientem, although I doubt there are too many liturgists who will sign on the it.

And I can assure you that your doubt is indeed quite correct.

 

[Randolph]

Hundreds of priest are not many in the scale of the number of priests.

And less than 3% of all parishes having a Mass in the EF is also minuscule; particularly when one considers that many of the parishes which have 1 EF Mass on a weekend will also have one or more OF Masses that same weekend.

I have not criticized you (another word you misuse); I have corrected you. It appears you don’t like being corrected; if you wish to carry on a monologue that is fine; if you want to carry on a discussion, then I will reiterate what a series of high school teachers had for a mantra in the mid '60’s - and that was “Define your terms”. Using terms of “many”, and “significant” have context; it is up to you to put them in the context you want, and that is not done by simply using them.

Pope Benedict did not use the word “demand” in relation to people requesting the EF, but he made it clear that it had to be more than a handful here and a few there before the matter would be addressed. He also made clear that priests could not be forced to say the EF, but rather, someone needed to be found who was willing to say the EF for that stable group. That in part appears to be some of the reason that so few priests say the EF (a point that Don Ruggero made); they appear to not be interested or motivated to say it. There are small groups who do have a commitment - a charism if you will - for the EF; but if I were to talk about those groups making it sound as if “many” were pursuing training in the EF and a future committed to it, most people would not think that “many” were doing so, if it were put into the context of how many priests don’t say it.

I gave you facts, and you are talking all around the issue. There are, in fact, few priests qualified to say the EF, out of the number of priests either in the US, or world wide.

I am glad that you have found the EF and that you find it best for your spirituality, as there are not that many available. God bless you on your journey, and may it be fruitful.

And I wish you well…

 

[ProVobis]

For those of you who are interested in knowing the number of the parishes regularly offering the Tridentine Mass on Sundays in recent years.(Keep in mind Pope JP2 granted in the Indult in 1984, and Pope Benedict XVI issued the Summorum Pontificum in 2007.) These numbers were put together by Una Voce America (UVA).

Number of parishes in the US regularly offering Tirdebtine Mass on Sundays:

–1988: 10
–1998: 130
–2006: 220
–2007: 230
–2010: 400
–2013: 420

Also, as of 2013, there were about 1,000 priests in the US trained to say the Tridentine Mass. Considering the availability of the Mass was virtually non-existent in the early 1980’s. It is moving in the right direction.

You may find out more info about these numbers by clicking on this link. Scroll down the page to see the graph.

reginamag.com/update-latin-mass-america-today/

Don’t forget the 62 Missal has gained in other countries as well. And everywhere it is celebrated the same way with very few, if any options. Same rubrics, same language so one can feel at home wherever he goes.

 

[JimG]

Here is one pastor who has decided to go ad orientem:
Why we’re facing east.

 

[pnewton]

I’ll agree it is somewhat odd that the vernacular and orientation were mentioned in the same sentence. But as long as he did, he could have also mentioned low-tones and other features of the Latin Mass, which is I suspect the greater fear than just ad orientem.

That was my only point, as I had no wish to argue against the value and place of Latin in the Roman Rite, much less the value of the availability of the Mass in Latin. I also do not think anthropocentrism is even a primary reason why a Mass may lack a sense of reference. I am more cynical and see pure human laziness as a greater contributor.