So noted, but how sacrifices were carried out in the OT should be taken into consideration, as Abraham, Abel, and Melchizedek are mentioned in the Roman Canon, or EP1, presumably to remind us of the Holy Sacrifice being offered.Jesus was the God of the Hebrews of the Old Testament. It is a dangerous error to make a distinction between the God of the NT and the God of the OT. Likewise, we should avoid using movies a source for anything other than entertainment.
Ora, how did we get from the topic of the thread, the priest’s orientation during his praying of the Mass, to whether chants by a choir should be sung in the vernacular?If we can’t have Latin, I’d settle for vernacular plainchant. I can manage the Latin; I sing in a Gregorian schola (entirely in the OF), but some hate it. Plainchant at least preserves a part of that heritage. The abbey where I normally go to Mass does mix both; the Propers and Ordinary are in Gregorian chant and Latin (+ Greek for the Kyrie and the Improperes on Good Friday), but the rest is French plainchant in Gregorian style. It makes for a very nice mix.
There are projects in the US like Simple English Propers in plainchant. I’ve seen a local Cistercian abbey use French plainchant for the Propers.
Actually, Cardinal Sarah can’t give priest’s free will on the issue if that priest’s Bishop does not approve.There is only one way ad orientem Mass (during the Eucharistic Rite, etc.) will again become the norm in the United States and Western Europe, and that’s if the Pope orders it to be so, and begins to celebrate the Mass that way himself to set the example. I could be proven wrong, but I seriously doubt Pope Francis would ever do that.
So…things will remain pretty much as they are, for the most part. There may be individual priests here and there who will celebrate ad orientem, and Cardinal Sarah has given them cover so that they will not be subject to discipline. There may be a few bishops who implement the practice in their dioceses but my guess is, not many.
Why? Because the wailing and crying and rebellion that would go up from the people in the pews would create a firestorm. Priests of the diocese who hate ad orientem Mass for what they think it represents would also grind their teeth and “side with the people” who oppose their bishop. It would be a real mess and a headache and most bishops wouldn’t want to have to deal with the fallout.
Or, it could be that ad populum is far more conducive to their legitimate spiritual welfare, a point which people who insist that ad populum is mere theatrics will never concede. according to their opinion on ad populum, everyone who appreciates it is wrong, and only they have the true spirituality.Why? Because the wailing and crying and rebellion that would go up from the people in the pews would create a firestorm. Priests of the diocese who hate ad orientem Mass for what they think it represents would also grind their teeth and “side with the people” who oppose their bishop. It would be a real mess and a headache and most bishops wouldn’t want to have to deal with the fallout.
Ask Fuerza, he brought up the topic of Latin and it was downhill (or uphill, depending on your perspective) from there…Ora, how did we get from the topic of the thread, the priest’s orientation during his praying of the Mass, to whether chants by a choir should be sung in the vernacular?
Good points.“For us, the light is Jesus Christ. All the Church is oriented, facing East, toward Christ: ad Dominum. A Church closed in on herself in a circle will have lost her reason for being. For to be herself, the Church must live facing God…” --Cardinal Sarah
It’s been a long time since I’ve attended an EF or ad orientem Mass. But thinking back on the old Mass, it seems to me that it was not so much the orientation of the priest which mattered, but the orientation of the mind. The mind was oriented to the sacrifice being offered at the altar. This orientation was implicit at the beginning of Mass in the prayers at the foot of the altar, the colloquy between priest and servers, beginning like this:
P: “I will go up unto the altar of God.”
S. “To God who gives you to my youth.”
Priest and server then alternated in praying a psalm, reciting the Confiteor, and other prayers, and ending with the priest ascending the steps to the altar. It focused the mind on the altar of God where the Eucharist was to be accomplished. That, I think, is the orientation that needs to be restored.
It was not him who did so, it was Cardinal Estevez, one of his precessors.Actually, Cardinal Sarah can’t give priest’s free will on the issue if that priest’s Bishop does not approve.
Jim
But a controversy arose last year when a bishop ruled that no priest within his diocese would be permitted to say Mass facing “East” (See “Bishop’s Decree Raises Questions”, AB November 1999).
Cardinal Medina Estévez, in a letter dated February 7 this year, responded to an inquiry from Bishop David Foley of Birmingham concerning the matter. In that letter (Prot. No. 2321/99/I), the Cardinal stated:
adoremus.org/NewLiturgy9102K.html“As regards the position of the celebrating priest at the altar during Holy Mass, it is true as Your Excellency indicates that the rubrics of the Roman Missal, and in particular the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, foresee that the priest will face the body of people in the nave while leaving open the possibility of his celebrating towards the apse. These two options carry with them no theological or disciplinary stigma of any kind”.
this Dicastry has concluded that individual Diocesan Bishops may not prohibit celebration of the Sacred Liturgy facing the apse “ad orientum” and therefore, it must respectfully ask that Your Excellency withdraw this Decree because it is contrary to the ius commune with regard to liturgical matters. "
Yes…and the parishioners were there to ‘assist’ the Priest in offering the Prayers and Sacrifice, as opposed to being entertained in a somewhat protestant way.“For us, the light is Jesus Christ. All the Church is oriented, facing East, toward Christ: ad Dominum. A Church closed in on herself in a circle will have lost her reason for being. For to be herself, the Church must live facing God…” --Cardinal Sarah
It’s been a long time since I’ve attended an EF or ad orientem Mass. But thinking back on the old Mass, it seems to me that it was not so much the orientation of the priest which mattered, but the orientation of the mind. The mind was oriented to the sacrifice being offered at the altar. This orientation was implicit at the beginning of Mass in the prayers at the foot of the altar, the colloquy between priest and servers, beginning like this:
P: “I will go up unto the altar of God.”
S. “To God who gives joy to my youth.”
Priest and server then alternated in praying a psalm, reciting the Confiteor, and other prayers, and ending with the priest ascending the steps to the altar. It focused the mind on the altar of God where the Eucharist was to be accomplished. That, I think, is the orientation that needs to be restored.
Yes, that’s it. Never mind what the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship says.Or, it could be that ad populum is far more conducive to their legitimate spiritual welfare, a point which people who insist that ad populum is mere theatrics will never concede. according to their opinion on ad populum, everyone who appreciates it is wrong, and only they have the true spirituality.
Coupled with that seems to be the opinion that bishops are a weak bunch who cannot impose the real spirituality.
The issue regarding Mother Angelica and Bishop Foley. had to do with his authority over a religious order, which he did not have.It was not him who did so, it was Cardinal Estevez, one of his precessors.
That was already decided by him in a case involving EWTN and Bishop Foley.
Bishop Foley attempted to prohibit Masses being said ad orientum within his diocese. The priests of the Enteral Word appealed to Rome.
The decision by Carinal Arinze was that the bishop did not have the authority to forbid what was allowed for by in the universal Roman Missal. What he did have the authority to do was to forbid such Masses from being televised.
Bishop Foley did just that. He repealed his decree forbidding Masses said ad orientum, but forbid such Masses from being televised.
Here is an excerpt from Cardinal
adoremus.org/NewLiturgy9102K.html
And in the faxed letter to Bishop Foley and the priests of the Eternal Word.
I’m beginning to believe today’s congregations want nothing to do with the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. Oh, they might give some token thought to it but I don’t think it’s taught more than that.Yes…and the parishioners were there to ‘assist’ the Priest in offering the Prayers and Sacrifice, as opposed to being entertained in a somewhat protestant way.
The issue regarding Mother Angelica and Bishop Foley. had to do with his authority over a religious order, which he did not have.
On the issue of televised Masses at the Chapel, his decision was upheld by the Vatican.
At the newly constructed Shrine, he did not because the religious order had set the norm.
In Bishop Foley’s dioceses however, the parishes he had authority over, the norm was for the priest to face the people.
I don’t recall him saying anything which contradicts what I said.Yes, that’s it. Never mind what the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship says.
Everything you just said could also apply to ad orientem, and the statements you make against those in favor if it can be equally applied to the versus populum crowd.Or, it could be that ad populum is far more conducive to their legitimate spiritual welfare, a point which people who insist that ad populum is mere theatrics will never concede. according to their opinion on ad populum, everyone who appreciates it is wrong, and only they have the true spirituality.
Coupled with that seems to be the opinion that bishops are a weak bunch who cannot impose the real spirituality.
Jim with all due respect you know well that the current Mass we Celebrate and the prior Tridentine Mass we celebrated likely has (had) little resemblance to what happened with the disciples. Are you suggesting that we all recline around a big table each sunday (and daily) and have a casual meal? I think we both well know the organic development of the liturgy. Why pick just the one thing (ad orientem in your case) to resist when you could choose just about everything we do at mass and Say, “They didn’t have organs (or guitars or pianos) at the last supper”, “they didn’t have a homily, or a penitential rite, or vestments or a etc etc etc.” I am sure you could pull some of that from Justin martyrs description but come on my friend.Of course the problem with this is many.
First off, Christ is among us at the celebration of the Mass in the priest who is Christ in persona, and Christ faced the Apostles at the dinner table, not symbolically east.
Second, this is how the Eucharist was celebrated by the apostles and the fathers of the early Church of the 1st century.
Jim
In point of fact, I am far closer to Jim’s thought than I am to your thought in terms of relative influence. A versus populum orientation is closer to the Passover than an ab absidem orientation. The method used at the Last Supper should be no more dispositive for today’s liturgical arrangements in the sanctuary than the congregation’s posture should be on reproduced divans of the first century Holy Land.And my point ( and Fr Ruggero’s) is that the Church does not base such decisions on any conjecture regarding positions at the Last Supper.
I much prefer the language of Eucharistic Prayer 3 to Eucharistic Prayer 1 when it comes to evocation of sacrifice.So noted, but how sacrifices were carried out in the OT should be taken into consideration, as Abraham, Abel, and Melchizedek are mentioned in the Roman Canon, or EP1, presumably to remind us of the Holy Sacrifice being offered.