Well, the microphone is at the ambo. From whence the homily is read.

johnmann - It seems one thing both extremes of the spectrum agree on and either gloat about or condemn is this supposed "slapping down" of Cardinal Sarah. I think that says more about the viewer of the situation than about the actual situation. One sees what one wants to see. Priests are still free to follow the Cardinal's worthy suggestion. Or choose not to. To my mind the Vatican correction seemed even-handed and necessary in response to the media hype (which, by the way, twisted the Cardinal's message - I would think that Cardinal Sarah himself would feel uneasy about the way his remarks were interpreted in some quarters). "Slapping down" implies a personal censure and animosity that I just don't see in the public document.

Wouldn't a "slapping down" also involve an apology or a suspension or removal from someone's post? None of this has happened.

I find the swirling around the clarification letter to be a sad reflection of the liturgical identity crisis we have been going through for decades. Challenge the assumed status quo, or even suggest licit options in a humble and fraternal way, and it seems to destabilize some illiberal clerics. Not surprising.

The Holy Spirit must be in charge. Otherwise pettiness alone would have sunk this ship long ago.

Let our faith be strengthened as we wait for the Lord. And it doesn't hurt to turn towards Him together. Why would it? There is more opportunity for clericalism when the priest is pushed into the role of talk show host/ entertainer. The progressives are really counterproductive on this one.

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.

Matthew 23:33
Matthew 16:23

He did: he published the full text of his paper in English (and reportedly also in French) after the meeting.

So whether the Pope criticized Cdl. Sarah or not, the Cardinal seems quite willing to put his message out for consideration.

The critics of Cdl. Ratzinger's liturgical teaching (now being carried on by Cdl. Sarah) must be feeling frustrated inasmuch as no one has advanced convincing arguments to drive it from the field. And it's not surprising that frustrated people wish for an intervention by strong-willed authority to humiliate and even dismiss the troublemakers. There are similar emotions at play in the U.S. elections this year.

Julie, I have been making trouble for 68 years now, and have gotten quite good at it. ;-)

The excellent Joseph Shaw of LMS makes the point that rather than go to war over ad orientem worship and other issues in the Novus Ordo in OF parishes, it would be far simpler and more pastoral to bring in the Traditional Mass into the parish schedule.

Good for him for getting down to brass tacks and speaking honestly! However I don't quite understand another statement he made:

Those attached to the kind of liturgical participation brought in by the post-Conciliar reforms see, with varying levels of explicitness, worship ad orientem as a major step away from those reforms: and they are correct to do so. This is why attempts to introduce ad orientem can cause civil war in parishes.

Not sure what he means by "the kind of liturgical participation brought in by the post-Conciliar reforms". We can't forget that the preconciliar Popes wanted an increase in liturgical participation in the Usus Antiquior. They wanted the people to say and sing all the responses, etc., so worship ad orientem does not in and of itself exclude active participation by the faithful by any means. It's a minor point, but just thought it needed to be said.

The excellent Joseph Shaw of LMS makes the point that rather than go to war over ad orientem worship and other issues in the Novus Ordo in OF parishes, it would be far simpler and more pastoral to bring in the Traditional Mass into the parish schedule.

amen and amen and amen

On the Chant Cafe, I've been noting some of the scriptural sources behind the ad orientem posture.

It's an interesting problem. Since the Council, many have lauded the increased amount of Scripture available in the lectionary. But what have we lost? Here and elsewhere (Fr. Michael Joncas has written about this) many have mentioned that the scripture of the Propers has given way to personal reflections in hymns.

In the question of posture, we see a scripturally-based practice going by the wayside, for reasons I can only think are merely social.

Being old enough to remember such things, we were told after Vatican II that the horrors of the Black Death created the darkness and obsession with eternal punishment in the Requiem mass. The Vatican II fathers wanted the mass for the dead to reflect the Resurrection of Christ, and to emphasize that we are people of the Resurrection, not the tomb.

Chris, those Pharisees were misunderstood. They had bad childhoods.

I myself prefer violet trimmed in white for funerals.

There's a specific reason for my preference for violet: it now partakes of the explicitly eschatological dimension of the season of Advent, not only of the (also very apt) penitential dimension.

The Requiem is beautiful and bright if you look at it in whole, especially with the music! The Dies Irae is awesome and majestic, not frightening; I blame Mozart and Verdi for this association. I don’t think even the Mozart setting is appropriate for Mass.

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. I Cor. 15:50

Hmm, perhaps that is part of why I enjoy Credo IV so very much.

Brilliant, isn’t?

CGZ, sounds right.

You want TUBA MIRUM???

Try Britten's War Requiem. Dem tubas dey mirrin' all over the place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVrS-1zjQb0

And that's not a very good orchestra/chorus, either

Yes. I don’t think we should be frightened by the reality that Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. If we take it seriously and pray for God’s grace living in hope and charity, then it isn’t something to fear. The text and music are sobering to me, and I think that is the right attitude towards the event described. Plus, I think that is a proper use of “awesome.”

I really think the reformers had in mind the orchestral settings.

Yah, well, I've sung it at several Catholic funerals over the last 10 years. It ain't gone yet.

We sing it 3-4 times a year (including this coming Saturday).

I thought the Dies Irae was prohibited in the NO Funeral Mass.

It could easily be part of the "prelude" music before an OF funeral Mass.

I haven't heard it at a Catholic funeral in at least 30 years, maybe longer. It is effectively, gone.

This reminds me of what Stefan Heid wrote in Dom Alcuin Reid's book, Sacred Liturgy, Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church. A paraphrase:

When a Catholic student reading James Joyce has to Google the phrase: Introibo ad altare Dei, this is, as the French say of Eurodisney, evidence of a cultural Chernobyl.

The same could be said of how the Dies Irae has almost vanished from the collective memory of Catholics.

I get the feeling that some people's "collective memories" don't go back farther than 1969: anything before Vatican II doesn't exist.

Perfect example of the hermeneutic of rupture.

Yep, Clerget. Perhaps, since you bring it up, it would be opportune to explore in a little more detail just how far this hermeneutic of rupture goes in the life of many Catholics.

How many Catholics today have the experience of participating in a Mass offered ad Deum, versus apsidem?

How many have the experience of singing or hearing Gregorian chant?

How many have the experience of hearing in church polyphony from the great renaissance masters?

How many have the experience of kneeling for Holy Communion?

How many have the experience of kneeling during a silent Canon of the Mass?

How many experience silence at all during the Mass?

How many Catholics have ever heard a sermon on the four last things?

How many have ever heard that the Mass is first and foremost, a propitiatory sacrifice for sin?

If you were to design a poll to assess the faith of Catholics on the essential meaning of the Mass, the Real Presence, the four last things, and the ten commandments, would the results be the same for EF and OF congregations if you were to compare them?

After 50 years of constant liturgical change, is it time to ask whether our modified lex orandi has essentially changed the lex credendi of Catholics? These are tough questions, and I don't presume to provide an answer; I'm just askin'.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to criticize all the wonderful, faithful Catholics at the OF, many of whom I consider to be saints and heroic Catholic witnesses, whom I treasure for their kindness and cheerfulness. I'm not saying one form is better than the other, I'm not measuring internal dispositions, but asking WHAT do Catholics believe. I'm just speaking in broad terms: are we beginning to see a difference in the faith and sensibilities of the people who attend the two forms of the Roman rite?

Are there very different approaches and perceptions of the Catholic faith, according to the two forms, and if so, what might the causes of that difference be?