Posted on 07/06/2016 8:06:36 AM PDT by ebb tide
Speaking at a conference on the liturgy in London yesterday, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the highest authority on the topic in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis, asked all bishops and priests to adopt the ancient posture in the Mass where the priest faces the tabernacle along with the congregation, rather than facing the people. He asked that the posture be adopted by Advent of this year, which begins November 27. During the same talk, Cardinal Sarah encouraged all Catholics to receive Communion kneeling. During the talk, the Vatican’s liturgy chief revealed that Pope Francis had asked him to “continue the liturgical work Pope Benedict began.”
The announcement was immediately recognized by Catholic Herald deputy editor Dan Hitchens as “the biggest liturgical announcement since Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum gave greater freedom for priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass.”
Vatican watchers are particularly stunned that Pope Francis, who is regarded by many as a liberal, has encouraged a more traditional approach to liturgy. Yet Cardinal Sarah said, “Our Holy Father Pope Francis has the greatest respect for the liturgical vision and measures of Pope Benedict.”
French Bishop Dominique Rey, who was present at the conference, took up Cardinal Sarah’s request without hesitation, vowing to at least begin to implement the change in his diocese by Advent. Rey, the Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, addressed Cardinal Sarah at the conference, saying: “In response to your appeal I wish to announce now, that certainly on the last Sunday of Advent of this year in my celebration of the Holy Eucharist at my cathedral, and on other occasions as appropriate, I shall celebrate ad orientem—towards the Lord who comes.” Bishop Rey added, “Before Advent I shall address a letter to my priests and people on this question to explain my action. I shall encourage them to follow my example.”
Cardinal Sarah gave thanks for the many celebrations of the liturgy that are devout and give glory to God, but he also lamented the many abuses of the liturgy in the Church. “In recent decades,” he observed, “we have seen many liturgical celebrations where people, personalities and human achievements have been too prominent, almost to the exclusion of God.”
Cardinal Sarah used his African heritage to drive home the point. “I am an African,” he said. “Let me say clearly: the liturgy is not the place to promote my culture. Rather, it is the place where my culture is baptised, where my culture is taken up into the divine.”
Sarah suggested that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council intended liturgical reform to bring more of the faithful to the Mass, yet for the most part the effort has failed. “My brothers and sisters, where are the faithful of whom the Council Fathers spoke?” he asked.
The cardinal continued:
Many of the faithful are now unfaithful: they do not come to the liturgy at all. To use the words of St John Paul II: many Christians are living in a state of “silent apostasy;” they “live as if God does not exist” (Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in Europa, 28 June 2003, 9). Where is the unity the Council hoped to achieve? We have not yet reached it. Have we made real progress in calling the whole of mankind into the household of the Church? I do not think so. And yet we have done very much to the liturgy! He expressed “profound grief” at the “many distortions of the liturgy throughout the Church today,” and proposed that the “Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.”
One such abuse he mentioned was when priests “step aside to allow extraordinary ministers distribute Holy Communion” which for many priests was thought to be a way of allowing lay people to participate in the Mass in a substantial way. Rather, said Cardinal Sarah, “This is wrong, it is a denial of the priestly ministry as well as a clericalisation of the laity.”
“When this happens it is a sign that formation has gone very wrong, and that it needs to be corrected,” he added.
He encouraged a generous reception of the traditional Latin Mass and also encouraged traditional practices Pope Benedict proposed previously, including the use of Latin in the new Mass, kneeling for Holy Communion, as well as Gregorian chant. “We must sing sacred liturgical music not merely religious music, or worse, profane songs,” he said. “The Council never intended that the Roman rite be exclusively celebrated in the vernacular. But it did intend to allow its increased use, particularly for the readings.”
Speaking of kneeling for Holy Communion, the Vatican liturgy chief reminded priests that they are forbidden from denying Communion to the faithful for kneeling for reception of the Sacrament. Moreover, he encouraged all to receive while kneeling where possible. “Kneeling at the consecration (unless I am sick) is essential. In the West this is an act of bodily adoration that humbles us before our Lord and God. It is itself an act of prayer. Where kneeling and genuflection have disappeared from the liturgy, they need to be restored, in particular for our reception of our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion.”
A lengthy section of his talk was devoted to calling priests and bishops to celebrate Mass facing “ad orientem” or with the people facing Our Lord. Here are the key excerpts:
Even though I serve as the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, I do so in all humility as a priest and a bishop in the hope that they will promote mature reflection and scholarship and good liturgical practice throughout the Church.
I want to make an appeal to all priests… I believe that it is very important that we return as soon as possible to a common orientation, of priests and the faithful turned together in the same direction—Eastwards or at least towards the apse—to the Lord who comes, in those parts of the liturgical rites when we are addressing God… I think it is a very important step in ensuring that in our celebrations the Lord is truly at the centre.
And so, dear Fathers, I ask you to implement this practice wherever possible, with prudence and with the necessary catechesis, certainly, but also with a pastor’s confidence that this is something good for the Church, something good for our people.
Your own pastoral judgement will determine how and when this is possible, but perhaps beginning this on the first Sunday of Advent this year… may be a very good time to do this. Dear Fathers, we should listen again to the lament of God proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah: “they have turned their back to me” (2:27). Let us turn again towards the Lord!
I would like to appeal also to my brother bishops: please lead your priests and people towards the Lord in this way, particularly at large celebrations in your dioceses and in your cathedral. Please form your seminarians in the reality that we are not called to the priesthood to be at the centre of liturgical worship ourselves, but to lead Christ’s faithful to him as fellow worshippers. Please facilitate this simple but profound reform in your dioceses, your cathedrals, your parishes and your seminaries. Throughout the talk, Cardinal Sarah stressed the grave responsibility of priests regarding the Eucharist. “We priests, we bishops bear a great responsibility,” he said. “How our good example builds up good liturgical practice; how our carelessness or wrongdoing harms the Church and her Sacred Liturgy!”
He warned his fellow priests, “Let us beware of the temptation of liturgical sloth, because it is a temptation of the devil.”
“But from the link you provided, and GIRM 299 and the USCCB took it even further:”
Your comment, as so often is the case, makes no sense in regard to the comment I posted. I pointed out that the New Mass was written with Ad Orientem in mind; it was assumed. The link shows ad orientem is not foreign to the New Mass. If you ever read the 1970 Missal you would know what it says. I guess you didn’t do your basic homework yet again, huh?
people talking about things as important as guessing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,
Don’t worry about my homework, Jr.
Here’s more crap from the GIRM:
303. In building new churches, it is preferable for a single altar to be erected, one that in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.
In already existing churches, however, when the old altar is so positioned that it makes the people’s participation difficult but cannot be moved without damage to artistic value, another fixed altar, skillfully made and properly dedicated, should be erected and the sacred rites celebrated on it alone. In order that the attention of the faithful not be distracted from the new altar, the old altar should not be decorated in any special way.
“Don’t worry about my homework, Jr.”
Well, someone has to since you and your parents didn’t worry about you doing yours. And, again, the GIRM is not the missal and the missal is not the GIRM. You honestly have never read these documents before have you?
Don’t worry about what I’ve read.
Show me one Novus Ordo protestant table where the tabernacle is located front and center on the that same altar where the the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated.
You obviously don’t even read the links that you post.
“Don’t worry about what I’ve read.”
That comment just shows how out of your depths you are. If you’re posting from texts, then what you’ve read is exactly what is at issue. You seemingly have no understanding of logic or basic argumentation.
“Show me one Novus Ordo protestant table where the tabernacle is located front and center on the that same altar where the the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated.”
Your comment is nonsensical - as so often is the case. Since I never made a claim that there were “one Novus Ordo protestant table where the tabernacle is located front and center on the that same altar where the the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated” I need not show you any. Again, you seemingly have no understanding of logic or basic argumentation. I would ask you to show me where I made a claim as you now demand proof for, but it’s a waste of time since you’re guaranteed to fail (as always) since I never made any such claim.
Can’t do it, can you? The novus ordo priests do turn their backs on God and put themselves between you and Our Lord.
Doesn’t that bother a tiny part of you? How about a pope placing a cheap beachball alongside the tabernacle. The same pope who won’t genuflect before a tabernacle.
You post an article that cites the GIRM. I respond with cites from the same GIRM, yet you claim I’m out my “depths”? How juvenile.
“Can’t do it, can you?”
Again, why would I have to show something I never claimed? I would rather simply spend my time showing your inability to make an argument, but you’re doing an excellent job of that already. Thanks!
“The novus ordo priests do turn their backs on God and put themselves between you and Our Lord.”
No, since God is omnipresent no one can put himself between me and Him. This is especially true granted that I, as a baptized Christian, have God dwelling in me - just as the Church teaches. Perhaps you deny that teaching or are simply ignorant of that as you seem to be of so many other Catholic things. Also, any Catholic who actually know anything about the faith (and that would leave you out apparently) many basilicas (and I mean ancient and medieval basilicas) have altars which mean no matter what Mass is said the priest will sooner or later in the Mass according to your illogic “turn their backs on God and put themselves between you and Our Lord”.
“Doesn’t that bother a tiny part of you?”
Since I can think, and actually know God is omnipresent, and that basilicas’ very architectural structure mean someone was often on the “wrong” side of the altar, no, what you’re saying doesn’t bother me in the least because it doesn’t make any sense. Again, if you knew how to make an argument with some logic to it - apparently you don’t and can’t - you might be able to make a sensible point. That is, apparently, not the case at this time.
“How about a pope placing a cheap beachball alongside the tabernacle.”
I certainly wouldn’t do it, but men do wrong things all the time. You post. See? Everyone errs against God and reason.
“The same pope who won’t genuflect before a tabernacle.”
It seems to be more of a can’t rather than a won’t. Even his enemies admit he has suffers from osteoporosis and arthritis. I knew a traditionalist priest who could not genuflect because of arthritis so he placed a small stool in front of the altar so he could genuflect somewhat without his knee locking. He was in his late 70s. Francis is the same age.
Go on. Post the kitchen sink since you can’t make an actual argument.
“You post an article that cites the GIRM. I respond with cites from the same GIRM, yet you claim I’m out my “depths”? How juvenile.”
No. I told you you were out of your depths because even after I mentioned the MASS (i.e. the missal) you still haven’t read it. I also have no reason to believe you ever read any edition of the GIRM in Latin or English. You’re out of your depths. And it’s juvenile for you to accuse others of being juvenile for pointing out the truth.
Now you're just sounding just like a protestant. Sounds like you don't believe in the Real Presence, let alone transubstantiation. Can't say I'm surprised, however.
It seems to be more of a can’t rather than a won’t. Even his enemies admit he has suffers from osteoporosis and arthritis.
Nice try but a pathetic one.
The last photo above is Francis kneeling in a Lutheran church. Who's he paying homage to, Vlad?
And I don’t believe you attend traditional latin Masses, let alone understand the language.
I haven't read the Mass? Are you crazy?
It gets back to "preference" which has no place in the Catholic Mass. There should have never been an "option" to face the people (vs. God) in the first place. It was not required but was obviously encouraged and preferred by those in positions of authority and the liturgical history of the last 50+ years proves it out.
And there’s the kitchen sink. Thanks for proving me right yet again. You can’t help but do it anyway.
“And I don’t believe you attend traditional latin Masses, let alone understand the language.”
It doesn’t matter what you believe on either one of those points. I know I do attend the 1962 Mass. I know that I understand the language of anything connected with the Catholic faith far better than you do if your posts are any indication of your ability. And they are.
“I haven’t read the Mass?”
No. “(i.e. the missal)” Learn to read. Reading is fundamental.
“Are you crazy?”
Nope. I read the missal of 1970. You have not. Admit it. You’ve never read the rubrics of the 1970 missal.
“It gets back to “preference” which has no place in the Catholic Mass.”
Do you prefer the Missa Cantata or the Low Mass?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.