I don't want to seem paranoid, but I don't think Fr started this thread for friendly reasons.

Don't feed the troll.

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.

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.

Fr. Chepponis, here are the conversations you've started:

Kathy, that was some quick research! And your point is...?

Kathy, that was some quick research! And your point is...?

Probably that some of the discussions you start give the impression of trolling...

I count 1 genuine question among your threads. The rest are marketing, which is fine, or trolling.

My knickers remain untwisted, and I agree it is curious.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Making things more sacred and holy is always met with someone wanting to hit the skids.

"there is nothing worse than the Mass, and especially that one in... Latin!"

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.

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.

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

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]

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.