Cardinal Sarah recommends Mass Ad orientem!

  • Thread starter Thread starter JurisPrudens
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I read an article recently that said the Church would soon be returning to ad orientam masses. My friends are more skeptical, however. Much as they would want to accept the news, they want to be absolutely sure it would really happen. They’re also unsure of whether it would work in our university 😦

By the way, these friends of mine are working to revive the Latin mass society in our university. I promised to support them but I told them I could not guarantee much since I’m also busy with another religious organization in our university. I humbly ask therefore for prayers for their cause and for my organization as well 🙂
 
Still another bishop who talks of the rupture (rottura) that has occurred in the liturgy since the council.
 
liturgy96 said:
They’re also unsure of whether it would work in our university 😦
Click to expand...
When I worked for a university (a million years ago) and they were re-constructing and remodeling various buildings, the campus chapel had to be set up in a temporary space. The room was set in such a way that Father practically had his back against a wall when he stood at the altar versus populum, it was difficult to bow and genuflect appropriately et cetera.

I suggested to him he could solve his discomfort by offering Mass *ad orientem *to which he replied “Oh yes :rolleyes:, the bishop would just love that! :rolleyes:”

:rotfl:
tee
 
Question… In the post VII churches where the ad orientem would not be facing geographic east, would the priest still face the altar or turn to face east?
 
I really do pray that this is left alone. I remember the 50’s and having the priest face the East was the norm, however; IMHO, I feel like I’m actually participating in the mass when the priest is facing us. To each their own.😉
 
kozlosap said:
I really do pray that this is left alone. I remember the 50’s and having the priest face the East was the norm, however; IMHO, I feel like I’m actually participating in the mass when the priest is facing us. To each their own.😉
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
phil19034 said:
Question… In the post VII churches where the ad orientem would not be facing geographic east, would the priest still face the altar or turn to face east?
Click to expand...
We’re dealing with liturgical east, which is what ad orientem refers to, where the priest and congregation face the same direction, with the priest leading in the prayers ad Deum and there is no mistake about it. 🙂 This notion of the priest’s turning his back on the people is very much mistaken IMO. Even in the ad orientem, the priest turns to the people at appropriate times (Dominus vobiscum, Orate Fratres, etc.) to invite a response.
 
phil19034 said:
Question… In the post VII churches where the ad orientem would not be facing geographic east, would the priest still face the altar or turn to face east?
Click to expand...
Actually, nowadays the correct denomination, for the Roman rite, for that facing would be versus absidem rather than ad Orientem, due to that very reason. In my rite, the versus populum orientation doesn’t exist and is completely strange. Because of this, all Hispanic churches (like, for instance, the two most important, the parishes of Sts. Justa and Rufina & St. Eulalia in Toledo, both erected before 711 AD, year of the invasion of the Muslims) were built with the apse facing the East, hence the name. The basis is that, as ProVobis says, liturgical east isn’t geographical east today.
 
I’d like to see the ordinary form of the mass with the priest facing east, all of the congregation and him facing the same direction, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (or at least most of it, when he’s not speaking to the congregation. Pope Benedict’s The Spirit of the Liturgy recommends facing the cross when facing true East is not feasible.
 
kozlosap said:
I really do pray that this is left alone. I remember the 50’s and having the priest face the East was the norm, however; IMHO, I feel like I’m actually participating in the mass when the priest is facing us. To each their own.😉
Click to expand...
Not attacking you personally, kozlosap, but in general, I find the pervasive “to each their own” to be a great source of division amongst people - the notion that “everything goes” leaves the door open for many, many legitimate disagreements. The council never intended for it to be this way, and in this specific instance, the council never recommended or required getting rid of ad orientem worship.

Anyway, can I ask why you feel you must have the priest facing you in order for you to “feel” like you are participating? The Cardinal spoke about “active participation” in his letter; active participation does not in itself have anything to do with the congregation’s dialogue with the priest. But even if it was, well, when the priest is actually speaking to the congregation, even in the Old Mass, the priest would face the people before turning back towards the East.
 
detoutcoeur said:
Wonderful news. This past Lent, Mass was frequently offered *ad orientem, and on Sundays the Mass parts were also chanted a cappella *in Latin. It was such a blessing.
Click to expand...
What kind of blessed place are you living in?
 
Celebration facing the people actually began on an experimental basis in the 1940s. It’s not entirely a “Vatican II” thing though it was ultimately allowed by Vatican II (though in some places in the pre-Conciliar Church it was allowed, such as in certain religious communities or St. Peter’s where the configuration was such that facing the people and ad orientem are the same direction).
 
OraLabora said:
Celebration facing the people actually began on an experimental basis in the 1940s. It’s not entirely a “Vatican II” thing though it was ultimately allowed by Vatican II (though in some places in the pre-Conciliar Church it was allowed, such as in certain religious communities or St. Peter’s where the configuration was such that facing the people and ad orientem are the same direction).
Click to expand...
Yes, I have heard that it was “experimented with” before the council. Though I personally brought up the council in my post, frankly it doesn’t matter that this was experimented with before the Council. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I’m not entirely sure you’re correct that “it was ultimately allowed by Vatican II”. If I’m not mistaken, the documents themselves don’t say anything about deviating from ad orientem worship. And assuming I am correct in saying this, then sure, technically it wasn’t disallowed, but it wasn’t explicitly allowed either, going strictly by the documents. I’m sure that Rome eventually gave the permission (actually I’m not sure, but I’m assuming it was given), but I think the point here is actually that you’re correct - the priest facing the people is not really a Vatican II thing - it’s literally not in the Vatican II documents (and perhaps even ad orientem worship is not mentioned either, which would mean that it was expected that the norm would remain the norm). And that’s one thing Cardinal Sarah more or less mentioned in this article:
Contrary to what has sometimes been maintained, it is in full conformity with the conciliar Constitution—indeed, it is entirely fitting—for everyone, priest and congregation, to turn together to the East during the penitential rite, the singing of the Gloria, the orations, and the Eucharistic prayer, in order to express the desire to participate in the work of worship and redemption accomplished by Christ. This practice could well be established in cathedrals, where liturgical life must be exemplary (cf. §41).
Click to expand...
So he says it is “not in conformity” with the conciliar Constitution to maintain that ad orientem worship during the times he lists is not fitting. Now true, he doesn’t really condemn versus populum worship, but I think it’s clear that he desires/is stating that in the average parish, and definitely in cathedrals to begin with, ad orientem worship should be the norm, at least at the times which he lists, and that this is “in conformity with the conciliar Constitution”.
 
bobballen_18 said:
So he says it is “not in conformity” with the conciliar Constitution to maintain that ad orientem worship during the times he lists is not fitting.
Click to expand...
The Cardinal was correct in saying that this directive is not contained in a Conciliar document, per se, but the Councilors directed that a Commission be established and its document is entitled Inter Oecumenici.
  1. The Consilium, which Pope Paul VI established by the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, has promptly taken up its two appointed tasks: to carry out the directives of the Constitution and of Sacram Liturgiam and to provide the means for interpreting these documents and putting them into practice.
  2. Vernacular translations of liturgical texts to be prepared in conformity with the norms of art. 36, § 3
  3. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.
This Instruction was prepared by the Consilium by mandate of Pope Paul VI, and presented to the Pope by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, President of the Consilium. After having carefully considered the Instruction, in consultation with the Consilium and the Congregation of Rites, Pope Paul in an audience granted to Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larraona, Prefect of the Congregation of Rites,gave it specific approval as a whole and in its parts, confirmed it by his authority, and ordered it to be published and faithfully observed by all concerned, beginning on the first Sunday of Lent, March 7, 1965.
Click to expand...
Therefore, our priests were in full compliance as they followed this instruction.
 
bobballen_18 said:
But even if it was, well, when the priest is actually speaking to the congregation, even in the Old Mass, the priest would face the people before turning back towards the East.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing about the EF is that the gospel is read toward liturgical north. But the gospel, if addressed in the vernacular, is read facing the people from the pulpit, as is the sermon.
 
What Card. Sarah suggests is liturgically normative; sadly, however, those who agree with him with just be happy with his statement and those who disagree with him will ignore what he has to say. Effectively speaking, nothing has changed.
 
Sirach2 said:
The Cardinal was correct in saying that this directive is not contained in a Conciliar document, per se, but the Councilors directed that a Commission be established and its document is entitled Inter Oecumenici.

Therefore, our priests were in full compliance as they followed this instruction.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that information - I assumed there was something somewhere that officially allowed it but didn’t know where.

Interesting to note, though - it was not required but only permitted. Again, I didn’t want to imply that priests were being disobedient or whatever by celebrating versus populum. They simply were doing what was permitted, and in my opinion, with the prevalency the vernacular, non-silent Mass attained, versus populum was a rather logical step in the same direction. But again, it was not required and not even recommended in that quote you gave me - just permitted. So I’m not sure Cardinal Sarah is saying it is not in conformity with the conciliar constitution to celebrate fully versus populum - but on the other hand, he definitely is saying that it is not correct to claim that ad orientem is not in conformity to the conciliar constitution.

Do you know of any other reference to versus populum worship in documents near the time of the Council? I shall have to see if I can find any also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top