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

[Randolph]

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.

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.

Source, please?

Since Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum issued in 2007, the priestly fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and SanctaMissa are organizations that have been training hundreds of priests sent by their bishops or religious superiors from throughout the US and from Europe to learn to say TLM. You can google these organizations for more info. These three organizations have training schedules throughout the year.

 

[otjm]

Since Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum issued in 2007, the priestly fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and SanctaMissa are organizations that have been training hundreds of priests sent by their bishops or religious superiors from throughout the US and from Europe to learn to say TLM. You can google these organizations for more info. These three organizations have training schedules throughout the year.

Well, then, I would not use the word “many”. “Some” might be more appropriate. As of 2015, there were 25,868 diocesan priests and 11,710 religious priests, for a total of 37,578 in the US.

World data for 2014: 279,561 diocesan and 134,752 religious priests for a total of 414,313 priests.

As noted: some. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but prefer facts to hyperbole.

Source: Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, aka CARA.

 

[Randolph]

Well, then, I would not use the word “many”. “Some” might be more appropriate. As of 2015, there were 25,868 diocesan priests and 11,710 religious priests, for a total of 37,578 in the US.

World data for 2014: 279,561 diocesan and 134,752 religious priests for a total of 414,313 priests.

As noted: some. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but prefer facts to hyperbole.

Source: Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, aka CARA.

“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.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well, then, I would not use the word “many”. “Some” might be more appropriate. As of 2015, there were 25,868 diocesan priests and 11,710 religious priests, for a total of 37,578 in the US.

World data for 2014: 279,561 diocesan and 134,752 religious priests for a total of 414,313 priests.

As noted: some. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but prefer facts to hyperbole.

Source: Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, aka CARA.

Hyperbole is an excellent word to use and, as a retired priest, is precisely the one I would choose.

As for the poster’s suggestion to Google these entities to find out about them, I have watched across my latter years as these institutes came into being and have had various levels of interaction with them.

I was particularly happy for the foundation, literally from one day to the next, of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter in response to the schismatic act of Archbishop Lefebvre.

It provided refuge for priests validly but illicitly ordained where they could live out their priesthood in communion with the Successor of Peter instead of in opposition to him. This was graciously and magnanimously provided by the Pope in 1988.

Today, as they prepare to celebrate their 30th anniversary year after next, the FSSP has 243 priests incardinated. For the entire world. That is not even half the number of priests who are incardinated in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, to use an American example, where the last number I had from a couple of years ago was right at 570.

Los Angeles is an apt choice for comparison since the total number of priests in the Society of Saint Pius X in the world, according to the last available statistics in 2012, was 561…again less than in the one American archdiocese.

Similarly, the Institute of Christ the King has some 50 priests incardinated. Saint Meinrad Archabbey, again using an American based analogue, has some 60 priests…and Saint Meinrad is only abbey of the Swiss American Congregation which is only one Congregation of the whole Benedictine Confederation.

It is a gift that these small highly specialised institutes exist but, like the population they serve, they are the tiniest fraction of the People of God and the scope of their utility is extremely narrow to the Particular Churches into which they are invited to minister…if nevertheless beneficial to those to whom they are entrusted with serving.

 

[pnewton]

Since when is understandable language too anthropocentric? Following this logic, mumbling in some unknown tongue would be preferred. Should we go back to the Pauline formula of having the priest speak in an unknown tongue only when there is an interpreter present?

If Mass were** only **about God, there would be no need to attend, no grace to receive, no mercy for the sinner. Jesus did not give Himself as a sacrifice to save Himself, nor did He come to Earth in the full glory of His divine majesty. In other words, Jesus gave Himself for Man. The *Gospel *is anthropocentric.

I wonder if Cardinal Sarah would be in favor of ditching the name “Holy Communion” as too anthropocentric. (or the word “Mass” for that matter. **God **is not the one who needs to be sent forth) Perhaps I am just misunderstanding his emphasis for some new direction. Cardinal Sarah did say we do not come to celebrate who we are and what we have done. If he is only using “anthropocentric” meaning not just Man, but the Man in his pride. Still, I find the inclusion of the vernacular into this concept odd as best, unless he thinks God has his own favorite language.

 

[Origen52]

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

Jim, can you explain the vehemence you seem to share with many others who never want a priest “to turn his back to me”. I go to both novo ordo mass and the occasional traditional Latin mass, both are meaningful when well said. But I never feel the priest has his back to me in traditional mass, he is facing God, he’s not ignoring me.

One of the most moving liturgies I’ve ever attended was a Greek Orthodox liturgy in Athens. The priest did not only have his back to us most of the time, he was in a separated area, behind a screen of icons. Everyone’s focus was on giving praise to God, very powerful reminder that God is the centre of our lives.

So what causes what seems to verge on anger, about a priest facing towards the East for part of the mass?:

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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

The Holy Father felt there was a need to clarify that what the Cardinal Prefect was in fact advancing in his keynote lecture was not in accord with the mind of the Holy See and was, in fact, quite opposed to the mind of the Holy Father who said there will not a change in the prescribed discipline on this matter.

As I have had occasion to say in this forum before, I have many times celebrated Mass ad absidem because I am in a place where it was not always possible to erect altars that are facing the people. And so, in those places, we accommodate the reform and renewal the liturgy, with which God gifted the Church after the last Ecumenical Council, as best we can in those circumstances.

It is of course made abundantly clear in such circumstances:

1. That there is nothing more efficacious about one direction of the altar over another. Just as it is no more efficacious for the sacred mysteries to be offered on an altar of stone than an altar of wood…whether the altar be rectangular or square…whether it have one altar cloth or multiple cloths.
2. That in those places where the altar is not facing the people, the time in which the priest is not facing the people is kept to the barest minimum. The introductory rites as well as the creed and the bidding prayers as well as the post communion rites are to be done from the presider’s chair, facing the people. The Word proclaimed is read facing the people.

As the Council Fathers said in Sacrosanctum Concilium: “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…”

In fact, I always find rather amusing the persistence of those who wish to explain their issues with the terminology of Mass “not facing the people” or Mass celebrated “where the priest has his back to the people.” They are not terms I would ever use as a professor of liturgy but they were universally the terms used by the people I encountered in parishes, where the terminology is decidedly more basic. I always found it to be so because they were expressing abjectly how they experienced this orientation. This is as true where the language is not English as it is in places where the language was English. One could explain the more precise terms but they invariably returned to what they experienced.

Frankly, that was much more significant to me as a Professor of Liturgy and Sacraments than were the objections of apologists for an ad absidem orientation on the other hand…because it does not account for what is, in fact, expressed. Many such, by the way in which they speak about it, actually do considerably more harm than help to the positions they endeavor to advance, above all when speaking to clergy.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Jim, can you explain the vehemence you seem to share with many others who never want a priest “to turn his back to me”. I go to both novo ordo mass and the occasional traditional Latin mass, both are meaningful when well said. But I never feel the priest has his back to me in traditional mass, he is facing God, he’s not ignoring me.

The priest is no more and no less ad Deum when the altar is oriented one way or the other. It is a fallacy to contend otherwise.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

And the Holy Father instantly summoned the Cardinal Prefect to clarify this matter, as the Holy See announced:

*Therefore, new liturgical directives are not expected from next Advent, as some have incorrectly inferred from some of Cardinal Sarah’s words, and it is better to avoid using the expression “reform of the reform” with reference to the liturgy, given that it may at times give rise to error.

All the above was unanimously expressed during a recent audience granted by the Pope to the same Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.*

Thus the Cardinal’s suggestion, made now clear to be merely his own personal reflection and in no way to be associated with the dicastery of which he is prefect, is to be viewed in light of what the Holy Father has caused to be announced. And the same clarification also has called for the end of the use of the term “Reform of the Reform” which the Holy See has found to have outlived its usefulness.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

I beg your pardon. What do you mean bishops and priests who had not been educated? Do you understand that most of the bishops have their doctorate? Priests serving in the diocese’s curia on matters related to, for example, liturgy or the tribunal or issues related to formation, will have their advanced degrees as well. On what basis do you say they are not educated on matters of liturgy? This is insulting.

Your statements are bizarre and the way they are formulated is even more bizarre,

 

[Randolph]

I beg your pardon. What do you mean bishops and priests who had not been educated? Do you understand that most of the bishops have their doctorate? Priests serving in the diocese’s curia on matters related to, for example, liturgy or the tribunal or issues related to formation, will have their advanced degrees as well. On what basis do you say they are not educated on matters of liturgy? This is insulting.

Your statements are bizarre and the way they are formulated is even more bizarre,

Father:

I was not talking about matters of liturgy in general. I was talking about TLM. The conversation about ad Orientem turned into TLM. My comment was not intended to insult as you are accusing me of. Indeed, bishops do have the degrees that you mentioned. But does that mean that all the bishops throughout the world were trained in TLM or were educated about TLM? Were all priests in the past 40 years or so trained to say TLM? TLM was basically suppressed since the 1970’s. I wonder what percentage of seminaries in the world today actually teaches priests about TLM.

I personally spoke to bishops in Asia. They told me TLM was not part of their training/education. I doubt that they were lying to me. With due respect, Father, I will leave your “bizarre” comment alone.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father:

I was not talking about matters of liturgy in general. I was talking about TLM. The conversation about ad Orientem turned into TLM. My comment was not intended to insult as you are accusing me of. Indeed, bishops do have the degrees that you mentioned. But does that mean that all the bishops throughout the world were trained in TLM or were educated about TLM? Were all priests in the past 40 years or so trained to say TLM? TLM was basically suppressed since the 1970’s. I wonder what percentage of seminaries in the world today actually teaches priests about TLM.

I personally spoke to bishops in Asia. They told me TLM was not part of their training/education. I doubt that they were lying to me. With due respect, Father, I will leave your “bizarre” comment alone.

The bizarre is because you conflate an ad absidem orientation with celebrating Mass in the Vetus Ordo. They are two distinct realities. Cardinal Sarah’s comments and Jim’s remarks are directed to the Novus Ordo, not the Vetus Ordo.

To say nothing of the fact that there were Vetus Ordo Masses that were not said ad absidem or at least that had people around the altar, and that thanks to the Liturgical Movement.

Every student of theology will have learned about the Vetus Ordo historically in both their initial courses on liturgy and sacraments as well as their specific courses on the various sacraments treated individually. Conversely, in history, they will have studied altar orientation. These are fundamental topics, even for a student who may have only the most rudimentary of introduction to ecclesiastical and liturgical archaeology.

As for actually learning to celebrate the various liturgies using the Vetus Ordo via a practicum, that is its own question; the utility of that is exceedingly unclear, if the requests are so rare. I would expect the bishops, in answering that question, would indeed say that they did not study that if they were ordained during the late 1970s. Those being ordained in those years would still have lived it in their younger days and even in, for example, minor seminary.

As one who had celebrated the indult Mass – back when that is what it was – I occasionally received in the years after a request here or there to confer a sacrament using the Vetus Ordo once the indult Mass was stopped for inadequate attendance. The requests coming to my diocese regarding anything involving the Vetus Ordo are very unusual.

There was just a query to me not long ago about this and my advice was that having our seminarians spend time on this, beyond a basic survey in the pastoral year formulated to reinforce why the post conciliar changes were needed and good, is just not a priority in view of other issues. The priest who handles liturgical matters for the bishop has the advanced studies in liturgy, moreover, to enable him to personally handle the few requests, as I used to do.

 

[Randolph]

The bizarre is because you conflate an ad absidem orientation with celebrating Mass in the Vetus Ordo. They are two distinct realities. Cardinal Sarah’s comments and Jim’s remarks are directed to the Novus Ordo, not the Vetus Ordo.

To say nothing of the fact that there were Vetus Ordo Masses that were not said ad absidem or at least that had people around the altar, and that thanks to the Liturgical Movement.

Every student of theology will have learned about the Vetus Ordo historically in both their initial courses on liturgy and sacraments as well as their specific courses on the various sacraments treated individually. Conversely, in history, they will have studied altar orientation. These are fundamental topics, even for a student who may have only the most rudimentary of introduction to ecclesiastical and liturgical archaeology.

As for actually learning to celebrate the various liturgies using the Vetus Ordo via a practicum, that is its own question; the utility of that is exceedingly unclear, if the requests are so rare. I would expect the bishops, in answering that question, would indeed say that they did not study that if they were ordained during the late 1970s. Those being ordained in those years would still have lived it in their younger days and even in, for example, minor seminary.

As one who had celebrated the indult Mass – back when that is what it was – I occasionally received in the years after a request here or there to confer a sacrament using the Vetus Ordo once the indult Mass was stopped for inadequate attendance. The requests coming to my diocese regarding anything involving the Vetus Ordo are very unusual.

There was just a query to me not long ago about this and my advice was that having our seminarians spend time on this, beyond a basic survey in the pastoral year formulated to reinforce why the post conciliar changes were needed and good, is just not a priority in view of other issues. The priest who handles liturgical matters for the bishop has the advanced studies in liturgy, moreover, to enable him to personally handle the few requests, as I used to do.

Father:

I am aware of the differences between facing liturgical East and the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. In a forum such as this one, postings often get distracted and the topics of discussion get pulled many different ways. People also use terms that mean differently to different people. Like I said, we started talking about Ad Orientem, but ended up at TLM. Ab absidem can be a reality in Novus Ordo, but is a reality in Vetus Ordo. Many terms got mixed up when many posters from different background join in the conversation. Clearly, you and I do not see eye to eye on the ad absidem/ad Orientem or Vetus Ordo/TLM issues, I hope we can have respectable dialogues in the future.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, can you explain the vehemence you seem to share with many others who never want a priest “to turn his back to me”.

:

So answer this question, where is God when the priest is celebrating Mass ?

Jim

 

[StAlphonsusMary]

Ad orientem or not, I don’t think we have to argue too much about this. If I’m correct, the priest does this because that’s the direction of Christ’s life (this might be why it’s known in the West). I also have attended the Syro Malabar mass with the priest facing the people and at other times facing the East, and a few TLM (low Masses) at an FSSP chapel. I prefer ad orientem but it’s fine if anyone prefers the other way. We don’t have to argue over it

 

[ProVobis]

Still, I find the inclusion of the vernacular into this concept odd as best, unless he thinks God has his own favorite language.

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.

 

[Origen52]

The priest is no more and no less ad Deum when the altar is oriented one way or the other. It is a fallacy to contend otherwise.

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?

 

[Origen52]

Ad orientem or not, I don’t think we have to argue too much about this. If I’m correct, the priest does this because that’s the direction of Christ’s life (this might be why it’s known in the West). I also have attended the Syro Malabar mass with the priest facing the people and at other times facing the East, and a few TLM (low Masses) at an FSSP chapel. I prefer ad orientem but it’s fine if anyone prefers the other way. We don’t have to argue over it

Totally agree with you, as long as the service is reverentiai. I don’t prefer either, each has its place in the church.

 

[Origen52]

So answer this question, where is God when the priest is celebrating Mass ?

Jim

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.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Origen

I was taught and believe that God is everywhere, at all times.

Correct, but you posted earlier that the priest Ad Orientem, is facing God.

So if the priest faces east as a symbolic act of reverence, why would that be upsetting?

Not upsetting except that you state its an act of reverence where facing the people, whom God dwells within, is not or less reverent.

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.

But the sacrifice offered, is present on the altar. It is a living Sacrifice of Jesus body and blood.

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.

Not upset, but we go through this argument time and time again as those who advocate the priest celebrating Ad Orientem do get upset when they learn nothing is changing.

Jim