Cardinal Sarah's remarks clarified
  • Vatican clarification concerning recent remarks made by Cardinal Sarah:

    http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/07/11/160711c.html
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 728
    They aren't really clarifying Cardinal Sarah's remarks, but simply clarifying that they don't necessarily agree with the good Cardinal.
    Thanked by 2Ben Yanke Mary Ann
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,995
    I don't want to seem paranoid, but I don't think Fr started this thread for friendly reasons.

    Don't feed the troll.
  • Fr. Chepponis,

    I'm not sure which of several conclusions I can safely draw. Could you help? (Serious inquiry, although it may sound snarky):

    1) Fr. Lombardi spoke more clearly than Cardinal Sarah did.... although clarity is Cardinal Sarah's trademark and opacity is a well known trait of Jesuits the world over and Vatican Press Office officials for some years?

    2) Cardinal Sarah's planned remarks at a conference need to be re-interpreted but the Pope's during an airline presser are utterly clear?

    3) Cardinal Sarah is dissimulating, and it takes Fr. Lombardi and Fr. Rossica to set the record straight?

    4) Something else?
    Thanked by 2JulieColl CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    This Vatican bulletin is interesting to read directly after reading the actual text of Cardinal Sarah's address. It was evident that the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship was speaking in a grave and authoritative manner of fundamentally important things like the manner of offering Mass and the mode of receiving Communion, and I find it shocking and demeaning to Cardinal Sarah that the Vatican Press Office took it upon itself to immediately correct and clarify his remarks.

    When such an erudite and imposing cardinal as Cardinal Sarah speaks about his understanding of the correct interpretation of SC, of course anyone who is interested in the liturgy ought to listen with respect and give deference to his opinion.

    I think there are two issues here.

    1) The truth of Cardinal Sarah's remarks which get to the very heart of how we worship God.

    2) The political significance of Fr. Lombardi's remarks, since they certainly make us wonder why the Vatican spokesman felt so impelled to walk back Cardinal Sarah's momentous address before the ink had scarcely dried upon it.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    Fr. Chepponis,

    Was something unclear about +Sarah's remarks that needed clarification?
  • Fr. Chepponis,

    Was something unclear about +Sarah's remarks that needed clarification?

    Well, Ben, that was the language used by Vatican Radio:

    http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/07/12/lombardi_clarifies_comments_on_liturgy_by_cardinal_sarah_/1243648

    Hmmm... I post something newsworthy about Liturgy on this forum that hadn't yet been mentioned here, and am considered a troll. Interesting.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,995
    Fr. Chepponis, here are the conversations you've started: http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/profile/discussions/1829/Fr. Jim Chepponis

  • Fr. Chepponis, here are the conversations you've started:
    Kathy, that was some quick research! And your point is...?
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114

    Was something unclear about +Sarah's remarks that needed clarification?

    Well, Ben, that was the language used by Vatican Radio.


    Oh, I know. But just because Vatican Radio said it doesn't mean it's gospel truth. As I said previously, was there anything unclear about what he said?
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    Kathy, that was some quick research! And your point is...?

    Probably that some of the discussions you start give the impression of trolling...
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    I'm glad you brought this topic up for discussion, Father, since I find it very troubling that a well-respected, orthodox Curial official was in essence slapped down publicly. Do you have any thoughts on that?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,995
    I count 1 genuine question among your threads. The rest are marketing, which is fine, or trolling.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Let's not twist our knickers here. "Troll" is also a verb, in that sense the OP's intent should be recognized as such. The environs at MSF aren't bush league, so I'm confident we can handle opposing POV's without rancor. I admit it seems curious that Fr. chose to illuminate and further a kerfuffle which was likely "not news" for those who visit here.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,995
    My knickers remain untwisted, and I agree it is curious.
  • awilliamsawilliams
    Posts: 94
    I think we should take Fr. Lombardi for his word. He didn't say that Cardinal Sarah's suggestions needed to be "revised", but that they were "misunderstood".

    How so? Read any major catholic media outlook's story from last week and you will see headlines such as: "Most major liturgical shift since Vatican II". Yes, I completely agree that they were misunderstood. Cardinal Sarah made it very clear in his conference (On Sacrosanctum Concilium, mind you...people keep forgetting the 25 pages worth of material he presented which included three paragraphs on ad orientem worship). +Sarah did not intend to "shift" legislation, but offer a suggestion well within the confines of the *current* law.

    So, what did Fr. Lombardi say? "There are therefore no new liturgical directives beginning from Advent, as someone has improperly deduced from the words of Cardinal Sarah." Sounds agreeable to me. No new directives. Law stays unchanged. Cardinal Sarah said nothing more than that.

    I think this is more of a Fr. Lombardi "smackdown" (to use Rocco Palmo's terminology) on the Catholic media who have been spinning Cardinal Sarah as the rogue African liturginazi who chose to deliberately reject the authority of the Holy Father and Bishops and impose his will on the world.

    Thank you, Fr. Lombardi for clarifying this point for all of us.

    Oh, and thank you as well for telling us that the Holy Father and Cardinal Sarah "unanimously expressed" these opinions in their meeting on Saturday. (http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2016/07/11/0515/01177.html). That must be why the official text of Cardinal Sarah's conference, released by the Cardinal's office two days after this meeting with the Holy Father, remained unchanged from the original.

    As for the matter of the term "Reform of the Reform". I agree. The term has a poor meaning behind it because it implies that the reform itself was flawed. Instead, I suggest we use the term of Cardinal Ratzinger--"The New Liturgical Movement".


    --

    Thank you, Fr. Chepponis for sharing this story with us.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Yes, somehow, no matter what, it's always "the media's fault" when something goes amiss. If the Vatican Press Office was so concerned about instantly correcting false impressions and misunderstandings then why are other Cardinals allowed to make outrageous statements which are left unhindered to drift along in the ethernet causing confusion and dismay?

    I believe this was an attempt, whether intentional or not, to undermine Cardinal Sarah's authority as Prefect of the CDW to recommend ad orientem worship. They shot down his proposal and ordered that we should ban the term "reform of the reform", and this seems to say, that at least for the duration of this pontificate, we will not be seeing any significant project to "mutually enrich" or "reform" the OF in a way that would make its continuity with the EF easier for people to see.

    Pope Benedict's vision to bring about a liturgical reconciliation between the two forms of the Roman rite can now be reasonably assumed to be on hold at least until the next pontificate.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 990
    Folks, why do we continue to rely on this mistranslation of GIRM #299. It only gets annoying to me when....the Vatican quotes its own documents incorrectly!

    And we wonder why our separated brethren do not take us seriously!
    Thanked by 1Steve Collins
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    I don't get it: posting (with zero polemic) about things which are both true and relevant to the subject matter of the forum, but which we wish had not occurred, is "trolling" now? By those lights, when the media reports on mass shootings they are just trolling the American public, since we wish that those didn't happen.

    If we took a vote on whether this should be an open forum or an echo chamber for like-minded voices only, I wonder how many votes each choice would get?
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,664
    Well there are there the kool kidz and those who are not. Just like elsewhere.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl Olivier
  • Ted
    Posts: 144
    awilliams:
    This is indeed the gist of Fr Lombardi's communique, that there is no instruction that requires ad orientem starting in Advent.
    But BruceL is also correct. The CDW has already ruled on the interpretation of #299 in the GIRM, and it is not the one that is suggested by the press communique. There is either incompetence in the press office or a deliberate attempt to appease the spirit of Vatican II types that greatly inhabit the Catholic Church. Cardinal Nichols seems to be one of those types who completely misunderstood the gist of what Cardinal Sarah spoke about, namely, that the liturgy is primarily about God, not the people.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,995
    I'm pretty sure I was not suggesting that this be anything besides an open forum.

    Just offering salutary advice.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Good for you, Kathy. Your comments are in the spirit of Pope Francis who wants us to speak boldly and openly, in the spirit of parrhesia and not be afraid to make a mess of things. So, in that spirit, Father, I hope you feel welcome to give your opinion on the news item you posted.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    Make a mess Kathy!
    Thanked by 3Kathy eft94530 Mary Ann
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    I downloaded and read Cardinal Sarah's 25 page paper. I thought he was clear.

    Related: http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2016/jul/12/did-fr-lombardi-contradict-cardinal-sarah-any-way/
  • Perhaps the point of the kerfuffle is that Cardinal Nichols and Fr. Lombardi actually didn't read or hear Cardinal Sarah's address. ?
    Thanked by 1Steve Collins
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,640
    Was Fr. Lombardi responding perhaps to someone's overreactions and exaggerations about the speech by Cdl. Sarah? His talk contained no suggestion about a new rule on the position of the celebrating priest, but Fr. Lombardi seemed to think it necessary to deny something that the Cardinal didn't propose!
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,100
    To untwist your twisted little panties, you really need to read the truth about the matter here:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/07/more-deception-in-the-war-on-card-sarah/
    Thanked by 2chonak CHGiffen
  • mahrt
    Posts: 505
    Cardinal Nichols said that Mass was not the time for priests to “exercise personal preference or taste.” For fifty years, we have been subject to the exercise of personal preference on the part of priests facing the people. Seminaries gave courses on personal priestly style, cultivating the personality of the priest in the liturgy. To say that saying Mass ad orientem will affect church unity in the face of the extreme diversity deriving from Mass facing the people challenges credibility.

    He quotes the congregation for Divine Worship as saying "the position towards the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier." This ignores the kind of communication that is taking place. One might concede that the Liturgy of the Word includes substantial parts which are communication to the people, but the notion of Mass ad orientem presently advocated is that the liturgy of the Word be celebrated from the chair, i.e., facing the people, while the Liturgy of the Eucharist from the offertory on be celebrated ad orientem. This is because from the offertory on, the communication is principally communication with God. Look at the Texts, they all address God. I freely concede that many priests celebrate Mass facing the people with a true sense of prayer and addressing God, particularly when they use the "Benedictine order"—a crucifix in the center of the altar with six candles, for which the priest can focus his attention on the crucifix, not the congregation, as one could often see Pope Benedict do. But many other priests say the texts of the Eucharistic prayers as if they were communications to the people, which is a point of ambiguity, which is resolved ad orientem.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    For fifty years, we have been subject to the exercise of personal preference on the part of priests facing the people


    I would just like to remark, not to take anything away from Dr. Mahrt's comment, that we have been subject to the exercise of personal preference on the part of priests in many other ways as well. Theoretically, Cardinal Nichols' statement would also have to preclude those ways in order to be fair: no more unilateral bans on Latin, etc. from parish priests.
  • I wonder if the attention given from other cardinals has given Cardinal Sarah's thoughtful and humble remarks more circulation. That would be a welcome, if unintended, consequence.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I think there's an element of a pre-emptive strike at play, MACW. Curia steps in like Yosemite Sam, say's "When I say 'whoa,' I mean 'WHOA!'" and all the priests who might be asked by the laity, "What's all this facing east stuff, can't we do that here?" can rest easy (pun intended) 'cause "the Vatican said so."
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,669
    Well, I don't pay attention to trolls.

    Nor do I pay attention to 99% of the Jebbies. Learned about them during my captivity in their education system. Sorta like the Exile.

    Thanked by 1Steve Collins
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,399
    How interesting it seems ++Vinny found something to do while hiding in a cupboard, while we were doing this in his Cathedral,

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/josephshaw/sets/72157670915647315/page2

    Before reading anything from ++Vinny, or taking him seriously it would be worthwhile getting an image of him... I think this one will do,
    image
    If you are in doubt as to which is the Cardinal he is on the righthand side of the photo.

    For those with short memories, this was the Cardinal that was more than happy with a priest's preference to have 'gay' Masses in London's Soho district, until told otherwise by Rome.

    Anyway here in London we have a rule, If ++Vinny suggests something is a good idea, it is safe to do the opposite without danger to one's soul.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen JulieColl
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    I'm not sure why people continue to cite the CDW letter to defend a position that it actually rejects. Read the letter.

    It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum [detached from the wall] and to the celebration versus populum [toward the people]. The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc. It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in Notitiae 29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.


    I wish it weren't so but it is. Versus populum is officially "expedit" based on GIRM 299.

    As for this recent Vatican kerfuffle, it's an unambiguous, if passive-aggressive, smackdown of Cardinal Sarah, ad orientem worship, and reform of the reform generally by Pope Francis. Again, I wish it weren't so but it is.
    Thanked by 2JulieColl eft94530
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 728
    "It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier."

    Good thing all the priests have microphones, nowadays, eh?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,854

    Good thing all the priests have microphones, nowadays, eh?


    Wouldn't it be wonderful if many of them actually had something to say through those microphones?
  • Jani
    Posts: 386
    Making things more sacred and holy is always met with someone wanting to hit the skids.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,890
    Alice von Hildebrand once said: "The devil hates the Mass." I think this may be why the sacred and holy are under constant attack.
    Thanked by 2Jani francis
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,100
    "there is nothing worse than the Mass, and especially that one in... Latin!"
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,545
    "It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier."


    I worked for a parish which offered both forms, and celebrated ad orientem exclusively. The priests had no trouble communicating with the people.

    Also, I was reminded of this after subbing at another church (celebrating ad orientem) a few weeks ago: For only ~5min is the priest "facing east" - the rest of the liturgy is exactly the same.

    Which raises the question: Why do some people have such a huge issue with it?
  • The full text of Cardinal Sarah's address, available through the Sacra Liturgia blog:

    http://www.sacraliturgia.org/2016/07/robert-cardinal-sarah-towards-authentic.html?spref=fb

    Here is how the Cardinal opens his section about possible improvements to current liturgical praxis:

    "In the light of the fundamental desires of the Council Fathers and of the different situations that we have seen arise following the Council, I would like to present some practical considerations on how we can implement Sacrosanctum Concilium more faithfully today. 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."[my emphasis]

    So the Cardinal clearly differentiates his office with the CDW, from the role in which he makes suggestions (as a priest and bishop). Further, ad orientem is only one of several suggestions. Further, here is the ad orientem appeal:

    "And so, dear Fathers, I humbly and fraternally 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, when we attend ‘the Lord who will come’ and ‘who will not delay’ (see: Introit, Mass of Wednesday of the first week of Advent) may be a very good time to do this." [my emphasis.]

    From this raw material we get things like the Catholic Herald headline:

    "Cardinal Sarah asks priests to start celebrating Mass facing east this Advent" with subheading: "The proposed reform is arguably the biggest liturgical announcement since Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum gave greater freedom for priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass."

    And then a few days later, post-meeting with Pope Francis the predictable triumphalist backlash, for example from Pray Tell Blog:

    "As you’ve seen all over the internet, the Pope slapped down Cardinal Sarah quite strongly, with only a bit of face-saving spared him (as if he had been misunderstood – yeah, right). Now we know what the Saturday meeting between Francis and Cardinal Sarah was about." (July 11th)

    Cardinal Sarah did not announce a new reform; he merely personally appealed for wider application of a licit liturgical practice that he finds powerful and helpful. He suggested a date that MIGHT be good to start this practice. And if the Pope "slapped" anyone down, it was the bloggers and media that erroneously blew everything out of context and proportion. After the media hullabaloo, a clarification was, in fact, needed, and the Vatican did, in fact, offer it. So the language of "slapping down the cardinal" is just silly and wishful thinking. Cardinal Sarah's address was eloquent, nuanced, and contained a great deal of value. However, people all over the liturgical "spectrum" share some blame for ripping it to shreds to further whatever narrative they are trying to tell about the current state of liturgy or Vatican politics.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 265

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if many of them actually had something to say through those microphones?


    Congratulations. This post has reached a new low. That's hard to do on a discussion forum which has more than its fair share of plain nastiness and un-Christ-like behaviour.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,583
    Also, I was reminded of this after subbing at another church (celebrating ad orientem) a few weeks ago: For only ~5min is the priest "facing east" - the rest of the liturgy is exactly the same.


    Was this my place? EPII? Do I need to give someone "the look"?

    Purple bold-ish.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,640
    This post has reached a new low.

    What? Oh, don't be shocked at a little jab about the quality of preaching.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,640
    By the way, some additional commentaries on the subject have appeared this week:

    Dom Alcuin Reid has discussed the address by Cdl. Sarah and its reception at the Sacra Liturgia conference:
    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4919/cardinal_sarah_has_challenged_the_prejudices_behind_certain_modern_liturgical_practices.aspx

    Prof. Adam DeVille (University of St. Francis) has written that a call for ad orientem celebration -- and a valuing of the Church's liturgical tradition in general -- can only help advance the cause of unity with the separated Eastern churches, which was a high priority of Vatican II:
    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4920/on_orientophobia_coming_out_of_the_liturgical_closet.aspx
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    @JaredOstermann, that is wishful thinking. I wish Cardinal Sarah's suggestion was picked up by others and carried through with formal or informal Vatican support. Or at least I would have loved a letter clarifying his remarks and saying that priests are free to celebrate either way. I wish. But the reality is that Cardinal Sarah was slapped down. You can't read that letter and feel it was neutral. "Reform of the reform" was even explicitly condemned. Notice no such letter clarifying Cardinal Nichols for instructing his priests that the Church "expects" versus populum.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    Dr. DeVille is actually at St. Francis in Ft. Wayne. I agree, and as a tangent, I think Summorum Pontificum was an ecumenical act; a journal of ecumenical studies actually commented on the WRO communities primarily using the TLM or Sarum. So, back to ad orientem: how can it hurt?

    [Ah, right: his book was published at N.D. I'll correct; thanks.--RC]
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,664
    Ghee, anyone?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,854
    Congratulations. This post has reached a new low. That's hard to do on a discussion forum which has more than its fair share of plain nastiness and un-Christ-like behaviour.


    I take it you haven't been listening to many sermons lately. Certain seminaries seem to not do a great job of teaching prospective priests how to preach effectively. I was talking to a choir member recently and we both remarked that at one time, priests were taught to project their voices as stage actors do. Most nowadays can't be heard without that microphone. However, the overall quality of Catholic sermons is not high.