Cardinal Sarah recommends Mass Ad orientem!

[CB_Catholic]

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.

I don’t see it as just being “permitted”. The instructions were specific. The altar was to be specifically freestanding so Mass could be said facing the people, according to that document posted. This document was specifically approved by the Pope and instructions were ordered to be published. This is not mandated, but it is certainly more than just “permitted” and tolerated. It is a legitimate option, not just something to be tolerated as an afterthought. They took the time to produce a document about it, and churches constructed new altars or revised old ones to permit compliance with the directive throughout the world.

I don’t have a preference, I grew up with the EF, and the priest facing liturgical East, but one must be fair about it. You don’t give such direction for something merely “permitted”.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

I don’t think that the OF (ordinary form) should be tinkered with, so I’m not in agreement Cardinal Sarah here. The OF Mass was intended to be easily understood in the vernacular, and any changes will only confuse people. If the priest is facing east toward the tabernacle (if there is one), then the faithful in the pews may not be able to hear him or see what he is doing as well. IMO, the cardinal should consider offering the TLM instead, at every parish. It would be a lot more work, but less upsetting to Catholics.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think that the OF (ordinary form) should be tinkered with, so I’m not in agreement Cardinal Sarah here. The OF Mass was intended to be easily understood in the vernacular, and any changes will only confuse people. If the priest is facing east toward the tabernacle (if there is one), then the faithful in the pews may not be able to hear him or see what he is doing as well. IMO, the cardinal should consider offering the TLM instead, at every parish. It would be a lot more work, but less upsetting to Catholics.

From a marketing standpoint, I believe you are correct. The TLM is a known commodity, and is identified by ad orientem, Latin, sub voce prayers, signs of crosses, Gregorian chant, etc. Assempts to introduce any of these elements into the newer Mass and resistance is almost sure to be met in MOST places. Some call this resistance as being “stuck in the 70’s” but that’s another topic of discussion.

 

[bobballen_18]

I don’t see it as just being “permitted”. The instructions were specific. The altar was to be specifically freestanding so Mass could be said facing the people, according to that document posted. This document was specifically approved by the Pope and instructions were ordered to be published. This is not mandated, but it is certainly more than just “permitted” and tolerated. It is a legitimate option, not just something to be tolerated as an afterthought. They took the time to produce a document about it, and churches constructed new altars or revised old ones to permit compliance with the directive throughout the world.

I don’t have a preference, I grew up with the EF, and the priest facing liturgical East, but one must be fair about it. You don’t give such direction for something merely “permitted”.

Is there some other quote other than #40 and #91 which you quoted, that I am missing? The “preference” to which #91 is referring is to have a freestanding main altar, not to have Mass celebrated versus populum. I mean, I’m not trying to use “permitted” as a bad thing. I’m only stating what the document says, which you quoted for me. The fact is that versus populum worship was not required by the documents, again, unless I am totally missing something. Yes, it was legitimately permitted, and I’m not trying to argue with that right now. Perhaps it was permitted so that the priest could choose whether or not to say Mass facing the people. And obviously, over time, all priests chose to do so.

I think Cardinal Sarah is only recognizing a real “crisis” in the understanding of the Liturgy and its purpose, and what the conciliar Constitution was meant to do. As of now, obviously there has not been a mandate put out to celebrate ad orientem at the particular parts the Cardinal mentioned - I think he was more or less stating his opinion that peoples’ flawed understanding of the Liturgy could be (at least partially) fixed if these parts of the Mass were celebrated ad orientem, and he was also just clarifying that it is not against Sacrosanctum Concilium to do so.

 

[Denise1957]

From a marketing standpoint, I believe you are correct. The TLM is a known commodity, and is identified by ad orientem, Latin, sub voce prayers, signs of crosses, Gregorian chant, etc. Assempts to introduce any of these elements into the newer Mass and resistance is almost sure to be met in MOST places. Some call this resistance as being “stuck in the 70’s” but that’s another topic of discussion.

I can understand wanting to introduce traditional elements into the newer Mass, because it shows that the newer Mass is in need of it, and that there’s something intrinsically appealing to some Catholics, such as Cardinal Sarah, in the older traditional methods from the Old Mass. But since Catholics have been used to the newer form, and the newer form was never intended to have traditional elements such as ad orientem, I don’t think it’s useful to introduce them. It would be like changing the TLM and incorporating elements from the newer Mass into the Old Mass, which would also be met with resistance. Many Catholics were confused when the Old Mass was taken away in the 1960’s. I don’t think it’s fair to change the New Mass, which people are used to nowadays, even though changes might be allowed. Of course I also believe that the Old Mass should still be the norm, though.

 

[bobballen_18]

I don’t think that the OF (ordinary form) should be tinkered with, so I’m not in agreement Cardinal Sarah here. The OF Mass was intended to be easily understood in the vernacular, and any changes will only confuse people. If the priest is facing east toward the tabernacle (if there is one), then the faithful in the pews may not be able to hear him or see what he is doing as well. IMO, the cardinal should consider offering the TLM instead, at every parish. It would be a lot more work, but less upsetting to Catholics.

Well, I agree with you that the TLM should be offered at every single Roman Rite parish.

Yeah, there is a legitimate concern about not hearing the priest. I suppose that a soft-spoken priest would have a difficulty over this…but I don’t agree that it would be bad for the OF Mass. Perhaps if ad orientem worship was suddenly employed at a parish which had rarely/never seen it, then sure, there might be confusion at first. That would be perfect opportunity, though, for some explanations by the priest, and I don’t see why he couldn’t encourage discussion on why he is doing it.

Regarding your comment “The OF Mass was intended to be easily understood in the vernacular” - well, I think that’s debatable, but I will go with that anyway. Honestly, if one only celebrated the parts ad orientem which the Cardinal mentioned, that would not be a big deal in terms of understanding. Everyone knows the penitential rite and Gloria; if they don’t, there is always a missal which contains the texts of the ordinaries of the Mass, as well as the Eucharistic Prayer/canon. I suppose the only “problem” would be the “orations” which would be considered “propers” and may not be in a missal, unless the person has one themselves, and then it could perhaps be considered impractical to be facing the East and saying that prayer, but only strictly in terms of being heard.

So again, I agree with you that I think the TLM should just be more widespread, but I also strongly believe in and fully support any move which makes the OF Mass more resemble the EF Mass, because I believe the two different experiences of the forms are a source of division amongst Roman Catholics, and it is becoming more so a division as time moves on, as far as I can tell. I think the only reason Pope Benedict tried to increase the frequency of the celebration of the EF Mass and wished the two forms to mutually enrich each other was so that in the future, we could go back to one form of the Mass. Obviously, I could be totally wrong on that, and only time will tell.

 

[ProVobis]

The fact is that versus populum worship was not required by the documents, again, unless I am totally missing something. Yes, it was legitimately permitted, and I’m not trying to argue with that right now. Perhaps it was permitted so that the priest could choose whether or not to say Mass facing the people. And obviously, over time, all priests chose to do so.

You can always use the argument that “versus populum” or better “ad versus populum” can mean “having turned toward the people,” implying, of course, that he had to be facing with the people to begin with. This is in a number of places in the IGMR.

Just sayin…

 

[kozlosap]

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.

No worries, I know you aren’t in attack mode! What I meant is that we are able to chose to attend the OF or EF. I am of the very small group here on CAF that does not think that the EF is more reverent than the OF.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Is there some other quote other than #40 and #91 which you quoted, that I am missing? The “preference” to which #91 is referring is to have a freestanding main altar, not to have Mass celebrated versus populum. I mean, I’m not trying to use “permitted” as a bad thing. I’m only stating what the document says, which you quoted for me. The fact is that versus populum worship was not required by the documents, again, unless I am totally missing something. Yes, it was legitimately permitted, and I’m not trying to argue with that right now. Perhaps it was permitted so that the priest could choose whether or not to say Mass facing the people. And obviously, over time, all priests chose to do so.

I think Cardinal Sarah is only recognizing a real “crisis” in the understanding of the Liturgy and its purpose, and what the conciliar Constitution was meant to do. As of now, obviously there has not been a mandate put out to celebrate ad orientem at the particular parts the Cardinal mentioned - I think he was more or less stating his opinion that peoples’ flawed understanding of the Liturgy could be (at least partially) fixed if these parts of the Mass were celebrated ad orientem, and he was also just clarifying that it is not against Sacrosanctum Concilium to do so.

I don’t know where you got the impression I said it was required. Here is what I see: people are using the term “permitted” in contrast to “preferred”, as if “permitted” means “just tolerated”. And if you read what people write honestly, you can see it is used in a slightly derogatory manner. What I am saying is that “permitted” is more than just tolerated, or appeasing people. It means it is a legitimate option, and thus deserves a bit more respect than it is given often on CAF, as it came from the Church, and the fact that the altars were revamped or rebuilt at their request means it was more than just permitted–there was the expectancy that facing the people would be done not infrequently. Otherwise the expense of the altar renovation, etc. to the parishes would be a waste. The whole document referred to would be a waste. Nowhere does it state this is an inferior position. What the Cardinal said is his opinion, other opinions from other hierarchy are just as valid. He, after all, is not Rome speaking, and Francis is now our Pope and hasn’t cared to address the issue.

Now, I am not a “fan” of either one. The problem of people not hearing the priest if he faces the altar is easily solved in most churches, outside, perhaps of the third world countries, by using a clip on microphone, just as many priests use now. That is not a major obstacle. But there are advantages to facing the people also. Most people, honestly, would not grasp any theological significance at all of the priest facing liturgical East. That only seems to be important to a certain subset of Catholics, and really, in real life, is not one bit divisive. Only on internet forums like this do people even argue about it (or in some small groups). We live in the real world, and that is what Bishops and Priests deal with.

We need a little more respect for the decisions the Church has made (that does not mean inaccurate interpretations of the decisions), and less criticism of people practicing legitimate options.

 

[bobballen_18]

I don’t know where you got the impression I said it was required. Here is what I see: people are using the term “permitted” in contrast to “preferred”, as if “permitted” means “just tolerated”. And if you read what people write honestly, you can see it is used in a slightly derogatory manner. What I am saying is that “permitted” is more than just tolerated, or appeasing people. It means it is a legitimate option, and thus deserves a bit more respect than it is given often on CAF, as it came from the Church, and the fact that the altars were revamped or rebuilt at their request means it was more than just permitted–there was the expectancy that facing the people would be done not infrequently. Otherwise the expense of the altar renovation, etc. to the parishes would be a waste. The whole document referred to would be a waste. Nowhere does it state this is an inferior position. What the Cardinal said is his opinion, other opinions from other hierarchy are just as valid. He, after all, is not Rome speaking, and Francis is now our Pope and hasn’t cared to address the issue.

Now, I am not a “fan” of either one. The problem of people not hearing the priest if he faces the altar is easily solved in most churches, outside, perhaps of the third world countries, by using a clip on microphone, just as many priests use now. That is not a major obstacle. But there are advantages to facing the people also. Most people, honestly, would not grasp any theological significance at all of the priest facing liturgical East. That only seems to be important to a certain subset of Catholics, and really, in real life, is not one bit divisive. Only on internet forums like this do people even argue about it (or in some small groups). We live in the real world, and that is what Bishops and Priests deal with.

We need a little more respect for the decisions the Church has made (that does not mean inaccurate interpretations of the decisions), and less criticism of people practicing legitimate options.

Hmmm…I don’t think we actually disagree very much over this issue. I never said you said versus populum was required by the council.

In any case, I can see what you mean, about people using “permitted” in a derogatory sense. I did not mean it that way - my apologies.

I also didn’t say that versus populum was not a legitimate option - I clearly stated it was “legitimately permitted”. I also clearly stated that I believe the Cardinal was stating his opinion.

Well, partially aside from the topic of this thread, I’m sorry, but many modern churches built today are the epitome of “wasting money”, if you want to talk about that. I can definitely see how people may believe doing more ad orientem worship would be a “waste” of cost behind putting in freestanding altars, and to that I say, I think in the future that won’t be as much of an issue, though it may be now.

In short, I agree that the decision to allow versus populum should be respected. But that doesn’t necessarily mean one has to agree with it.

I also agree with you that many/most? Catholics would not care either way, that they may not have a preference. If anything, though, I would say that’s more sad than anything else that no one would perceive a theological difference. Especially if the priest who would implement it was giving his reasons for doing so.

 

[OraLabora]

We need to keep in mind that the Roman Missal not only applies to parishes, but also to religious communities, oratories, shrines, basilicas and cathedrals. In some communities the long-standing tradition is community-oriented worship. A case in point is the Benedictines.

I’ve been to several monasteries where the Mass was ad orientem… for the faithful in the nave, but facing the community in the choir stalls, a long-standing tradition. In this configuration (in mostly older churches/abbeys), the altar is between the nave and the choir; more recently I attended daily Mass at the abbey of Sant’Anselmo in Rome, using that method, but I was allowed to sit in the choir with the monks as a visiting oblate there on oblate business. More recently churches have been built since the Council with a free-standing altar at the far end of the choir, so the priests face both the community and the faithful in the nave.

In fact since most communities now concelebrate the Mass, at our abbey having the 15 or so priests plus presider who do concelebrate would look ridiculous ad orientem. The altar would be all but invisible to both the community and the faithful. The only other solution would be a 7-figure reconstruction of the choir and sanctuary. Most communities can’t afford that sort of thing.

There’s therefore no way that returning to ad orientem across the board would be realistic. The rule would have to be written to apply only to where feasible or where it doesn’t interfere with community tradition.

I don’t expect to see the Missal re-written to force ad-orientem worship across the board, though I expect it may be encouraged where possible and with the parish’s or community’s consent, as long as expensive remodelling isn’t required.