My spidey-sense tells me that Card. Sarah’s speech marks a turning point.

LatinMassOn 5 July 2016, in London, Robert Card. Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, gave a powerful address at a conference on liturgy.   Card. Sarah appealed to priests to say Mass ad orientem. Let’s call it the… Sarah Appeal™.

I fully expect that there will soon be a tremendous backlash unleashed on all who support the Cardinal’s proposal.

Frankly, when the other day I saw in the Bolletino that Card. Sarah had been granted an audience with Pope Francis, I wondered if the Cardinal might not have in his stars the same lot as Card. Burke.  Francis wanted a different direction for the Signatura so he moved Card. Burke to be the Patron of the Knights of Malta.  Now that Card. O’Brien is over 75 and has, therefore, no doubt offered his resignation to His Holiness as Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher, that group of Knights might be opening up.  Who knows?  In a light-hearted exchange with a priest friend it was quipped that if the Holy Sepulcher isn’t a possibility, perhaps the Knights Who Say “Ni!” are available.

You’ve gotta look for some humor in life in the Church these days, friends.  That’s how you know that you not a liberal.  But I digress.

It is early to tell, very early, but my spidey-sense tells me that Card. Sarah’s speech marks a turning point.

Through history, there have been short speeches with long effects.  Sometimes they are delivered to small crowds, such as the Gettysburg Address. Sometimes they are broadcast to many, as in Churchill’s 13 May 1940 radio call-to-arms.  Sometimes they are given by the famous, as in Martin Luther King’s 28 August 1963 speech at the Lincoln Memorial. Sometimes the speech-maker is relatively unknown, as in Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I A Woman?” speech at the Women’s Convention, Akron, Ohio.   You can make your own list of short history-changing oratory.

Every once in a while, a Cardinal makes an important speech that both reveals the state of the Church and the speech leaves an enduring mark.

For example, on 12 May 1879, John Henry Card. Newman gave his formal “Biglietto” Speech, when he was given the red hat.   He spoke about liberalism in religion.  “Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion.”  He talked about the replacement of revelation by natural virtues as “a great apostasia.”

On 3 August 1941 Clemens Card. von Galen gave a speech, a sermon, in the Cathedral of Münster against the Nazi euthanasia program.  As a result, Hitler suspended the program which had already killed a hundred thousand people.  Hitler couldn’t touch von Galen physically, but he retaliated by having three priests beheaded. They had distributed von Galen’s sermon. Von Galen gave three sermons against Nazism.

On 18 April 2005, Joseph Card. Ratzinger delivered a sermon at Mass “pro eligendo Romano Pontifice, which probably was a major factor that catapulted him in to the See of Peter.  This is the sermon in which he said:  “Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”

You can probably come up with examples of your own.

It seems to me that Card. Sarah’s London ad orientem appeal will prove to be a catalyst that will set in motion significant change.  As often happens with catalysis, however, violent reactions can occur.  And, if I remember my college chemistry rightly, catalysts remain even after the reaction occurs, so that reactions can keep on occurring down the line.  Catalysts have an enduring effect.

Each priest who takes up Card. Sarah’s catalytic call will in turn become a catalyst in his parish or wherever he serves.  The way priests say Mass has a knock-on effect in congregations.

Carefully review what Card. Sarah said (read the whole this HERE).  In part:

I want to make an appeal to all priests. You may have read my article in L’Osservatore Romano one year ago (12 June 2015) or my interview with the journal Famille Chrétienne in May of this year. On both occasions I said that 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. This practice is permitted by current liturgical legislation. It is perfectly legitimate in the modern rite. Indeed, 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 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. Dear Fathers, we should listen again to the lament of God proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah: “they have turned their backs to me and not their faces” (2:27). Let us turn again towards the Lord! Since the day of his Baptism, the Christian knows only one direction: the Orient. “You entered to confront your enemy, for you intended to renounce him to his face. You turned toward the East (ad Orientem), [NB] for one who renounces the devil turns towards Christ and fixes his gaze directly on Him” (From the beginning of the Treatise on the Mysteries by Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan). [De mysteriis 2,7 – Ingressus igitur, ut adversarium tuum cerneres, cui renuntiandum in os putaris, ad orientem converteris; qui enim renuntiat diabolo, ad Christum convertitur, illum directo cernit obtutu.

I very humbly and fraternally 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 united in the one same act of adoration. Please facilitate this simple but profound reform in your dioceses, your cathedrals, your parishes and your seminaries.

We bishops have a great responsibility, and one day we shall have to answer to the Lord for our stewardship. We are the owners of nothing! Nothing belongs to us! As St Paul teaches, we are merely “the servants of Christ and the stewards of the mysteries of God. Now it is of course required of stewards that they be found trustworthy” (1 Cor. 4:1-2). We are responsible to ensure that the sacred realities of the liturgy are respected in our dioceses and that our priests and deacons not only observe the liturgical laws, but know the spirit and power of the liturgy from which they emerge. I was very encouraged to read the presentation on “The Bishop: Governor, Promoter and Guardian of the Liturgical Life of the Diocese” made to the 2013 Sacra Liturgia conference in Rome by Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland in Oregon in the USA, and I fraternally encourage my brother bishops to study his considerations carefully.

All liturgical ministers should make a examination of conscience periodically. For this I recommend part II of the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of Benedict XVI (22 February 2007), “The Eucharist, a Mystery to be Celebrated.” It is almost ten years since this Exhortation was published as the collegial fruit of the 2005 Synod of Bishops. How much progress have we made in that time? What more do we need to do? We must ask ourselves these questions before the Lord, each of us according to our responsibility, and then do what we can and what we must to achieve the vision outlined by Pope Benedict.

At this point I repeat what I have said elsewhere, that Pope Francis has asked me to continue the extraordinary liturgical work Pope Benedict began (see: Message to Sacra Liturgia USA 2015, New York City). Just because we have a new pope does not mean that his predecessor’s vision is now invalid. On the contrary, as we know, our Holy Father Pope Francis has the greatest respect for the liturgical vision and measures Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI implemented in utter fidelity to the intentions and aims of the Council Fathers.

Card. Sarah put his finger directly on a huge wound that must be dealt with before true renewal can take place: Holy Church’s all important liturgical worship.  He identified something that would be a great contribution to that renewal: ad orientem worship.

That means that he must be attacked, discredited.  Those who support his proposal must be intimidated, silenced, crushed.  They must not be allowed to create effective, enduring changes.

One of the reasons why I think there will be an attack on priests who support the Sarah Appeal™ is because the liberal elite hear in it a criticism of their projects perpetrated in the name of the reforms called for by the Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium.  They think the suggestion that, perhaps, we could say Mass as our forebears did for so long is an accusation that they were wrong all along.  In fact, the versus populum thing was built precisely on a sandy foundation of incorrect scholarship which experts such as Louis Bouyer and Joseph Jungmann eventually repudiated.  However, by the time they did that, the fix was in.

Another reason why there will be harsh blow-back for anyone who supports the Sarah Appeal™ is because ad orientem worship is an invitation to conversion.  In another post, I alerted you to a priest who touched on the moral dimension that ad orientem invokes.  HERE Ad orientem worship is itself an implicit call to right conduct.  That’s certainly a reason for Satan to hate it, to move his agents to stomp it and those who support it into the dust whence Adam came.  That’s why the Enemy will move his pawns, bishops and … queens… into action.  NB again what Card. Sarah quoted, above, from St. Ambrose De mysteriis.

Speaking of “mysteries”, another reason why ad orientem worship will be ferociously resisted is because it is yet another corrective toward producing during Holy Mass the apophatic conditions in which the worshiper might have an encounter with Mystery.  This encounter is both alluring and frightening.  It is alluring because we who are in the image and likeness of God are restless to be with God, who in this life is utterly mysterious, whom we can only glimpse darkly, as if in a glass or perhaps through the crack in the rock as He passes on the other side. It is frightening because it moves us to deal with the reality of death, the knowledge that one day we will cross over.  Holy Mass must prepare us for death.   But if we are too afraid to deal with this, then we fill our liturgical worship with myriad distractions.  We eliminate silence.  We reduce music and ornament to the lowest sort of thing.  We banalize the language and eliminate anything too challenging.  We do all that we can to eliminate the difficult, challenging apophatic conditions that are the necessary propaedeutic for that alluringly frightening encounter.  If Holy Mass is not helping you to get ready for your own death, it isn’t fulfilling one of its most important purposes.

Card. Sarah placed his finger directly on a huge wound.  His speech will some day be recognized as an important turning point, a healing point.  But remember that, as Augustine once pointed out, the doctor doesn’t stop cutting just because the patient screams for him to stop.  Things will get mighty noisy and ugly before this is over, my friends.

Therefore, clean your house.

Examine your consciences, look over your vocation and your duties, and GO TO CONFESSION!

And please, I beg you, pray for me.  I can feel it on the horizon.  Pray for all priests and bishops.  Pray that their minds and hearts be opened and that their actions reflect a loving balance of prudence and courage.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
66 Comments

ASK FATHER: Future spouse doesn’t want kids to attend Novus Ordo, but I do.

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I am engaged to a girl who was raised attending a SSPX chapel her entire life. We will be married by a diocesan priest in the traditional form. She is unsure whether she can receive communion at a Novus Ordo mass, since she was raised being taught (by Society priests and family) that the Novus Ordo is shot through with humanism and that it is a mortal sin to participate if you know of its corruption. We plan on attending mainly traditional diocesan masses as a married couple, only really attending Novus Ordo or Society masses for family functions. This is all fine and well with me.

Our only real dispute is what we will teach our children regarding the Novus Ordo mass. I think that any future children should be taught that although we prefer the TLM, it is permissible from time to time to attend a Novus Ordo. [Like the two of you say you are going to do for family functions.] She is not sure what she thinks about this. … If we ask a Society priest about our dispute we get one answer, if we consult a Novus Ordo priest, we get another. Any comment on this matter would be VERY welcome.

The sacrament of matrimony binds a man and a woman together for life. They share in the “communio totius vitae … the communion of the whole of life”. It’s not merely a partnership, or a living arrangement, but a covenant. The parties remain separate and distinct.  It is a good thing when a married couple have some different interests, opinions, attitudes.  However, they come together as one to signify, not only to themselves but to the Church and the whole world, the intimate love that God has for his people.

From that unity which is a hallmark of marriage, it follows that serious differences of opinions can make a marriage difficult. The more serious the matter, and stronger the disagreement, the more grave the problems that could arise. Different tastes in food, music, clothing can sometimes be a challenge, but mature people usually work those out. Different views of politics or economics can be the subject of heated arguments, but most couples work them through. Some couples have found workable arrangements concerning divergent philosophies or religious differences.  For many couples, they spell disaster to their relationship.

If she truly believes that hearing Mass in the Ordinary Form is a mortal sin, and that it would be best not to attend Mass at all rather than be somehow tainted by attending an Ordinary Form Mass, then you have serious issues to iron out before your big day, especially if you are of the mind that your future offspring must not be wholly isolated away from the Novus Ordo.

It may be tempting to think, “Well, she’s wrong.  I’ll have to work at changing her mind sometime along the way.”   I, however, warmly recommend that you both have a loving heart to heart and mind to mind talk or four and figure out what to do about this together.

Pius XI wrote in his encyclical Casti connubii, “By matrimony the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies.”  You might just read some of that encyclical together.

When it comes to holy Mass, which should be central to the life of the marriage, serious disagreements about validity and efficacy are not going to be just a little bump to run over.  Start working this through now.  Each time you talk about it, you might start by saying a prayer for the swift and complete canonical reconciliation of the SSPX.  After that, keep calm and don’t let any rancorous words pass your lips.  Remember, in your role as husband and father, you will be the head of your little “domestic church”.  I’ll bet that, given her upbringing, she will resonate with that.  Therefore, ask St. Joseph to help you both in figuring this out.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, SSPX | Tagged , , , ,
8 Comments

The connection of morals and “ad orientem” worship

Satan has been dealt a serious setback by Card. Sarah, and the Enemies minions are on the move.  Spiritual attacks will now multiply on the priests and bishops who undertake what Card. Sarah has suggested.

I saw this, from Msgr. C. Eugene Morris is a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, at the National Catholic Register.  He argues that worship ad orientem could have a knock-on effect on  – I think – moralseven societal mores – not just on general conduct of individuals.

Think about that.

Our liturgical choices make a difference in our Catholic identity.  Therefore, our liturgical choices have an impact on our state of grace now, our future hope and salvation, and on how we interact with our neighbor and the world around us in this vale of tears.

We are our Rites!

The Eucharist (Itself and Its celebration which is Mass) is famously called the “source and summit” of our lives as Catholics.

Change our worship, and you change our identity.  It takes a while, but it is inevitable.  Let’s jump into the middle.  Read the whole thing there.  He is writing, of course, about Card. Sarah’s appeal to priests to say Mass ad orientem.  Why? Because of a personal preference or taste?  No.  He made that appeal for what he sees is the good of the Church.  Take it away, Msgr. Morris….

‘Ad Orientem’: Right Worship Leads to Right Conduct

[…]

Every celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should reflect its paramount importance in the life of the Church. The prefect’s exhortation is meant to assist priests and bishops in keeping God at the center of every liturgical celebration and, as a consequence, keeping God at the center of our lives.
Cardinal Sarah’s comments continue the liturgical vision of Pope Benedict XVI, who understood rightly that right worship leads to right conduct. It is only when we celebrate all the sacraments, especially holy Mass, according to the mind of God that we are then able to do the things of God.
It might be rightly concluded that the current cultural climate and its many excesses can only be corrected when everyone returns to a faithful, proper adoration of God. It follows how significant it is that the priest and the faithful face the Lord when addressing the Lord, as the most concrete expression of our desire to configure ourselves to the God that we worship.
It is this complete configuration to Christ that makes it possible for us to live the life of Christ, who draws us into deep, abiding union with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Without a vibrant and properly oriented liturgical life, the Church will continuously struggle to convince the faithful to lead a correct moral life.  [As I write again and again, for years, no undertaking of renewal in the Church or anything else can succeed without a revitalization of our sacred liturgical worship.  Ad orientem worship will be a power element of such a revitalization.]
There is an inexplicable connection between proper adoration given to God and the ability of men to lead sanctified lives. Cardinal Sarah is offering the Church an opportunity to recapture an ancient and still legitimate practice that will greatly assist the whole Church in combating the moral decline of this current age.
Some will argue that this exhortation lacking the approval of the Pope does not have the force of law and therefore will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Furthermore, this lack of papal approbation will create problems for those priests who attempt to do this in their parishes, possibly bringing them into conflict with their bishops.
While this is true and possible, it obscures the true significance of Cardinal Sarah’s exhortation. He has made public what has long been discussed in private and provided a legitimate and powerful voice to a necessary conversation in the Church. Cardinal Sarah has correctly pointed out that there is no conflict in the current missal with celebrating Mass ad orientem, this despite the debates that exist regarding the missal. Immediately after Cardinal Sarah’s address, Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster, England, openly discouraged his priests from celebrating ad orientem, citing the possibility of creating disunity and a misinterpretation of the current missal (299). The confusion created by Cardinal Nichols’ unfortunate response should not deter my brother priests from courageously responding to Cardinal Sarah’s exhortation.
Those of us who would choose to celebrate Mass ad orientem and joyfully welcome this opportunity in the life of the Church have waited a long time — not for legislation, but for clear, vocal support; and with Cardinal Sarah’s clarion call, we have received such support.
It is hoped by this author that priests and bishops alike will pay attention to the thought and words of the prefect and offer to the faithful the most fitting means to praise and worship the God who saves us.

Fr. Z kudos to Msgr. Morris.  Let us now pray for him, that the world doesn’t come down on his head.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged ,
19 Comments

Card. Nichols’ Letter to priests, reacting to Card. Sarah’s ‘ad orientem’ appeal

Francis_Ad_OrientemI was sent the text of the official letter that His Eminence Vincent Card. Nichols sent to the priests of the Archdiocese of Westminster as a reaction to the unofficial, personal appeal made by Robert Card. Sarah, Prefect of the CDW, to priests to say Holy Mass ad orientem.

Here is Card. Nichols, with my emphases and comments:

In response to a number of enquiries, in the light of Cardinal Sarah’s recent personal comments, I take this opportunity of reminding all priests of the importance of ensuring that every celebration of the Liturgy is carried out with all possible dignity. Whether the celebration of the Mass is simple or elaborate, it should always be characterised by that dignity which helps to raise our minds and hearts to God and which avoids distracting confusion or inappropriate informality. [Who would disagree with this?  However, I double-checked Card. Sarah’s talk.  Unless I missed it, Sarah did not speak about dignity or informality.]

I also remind our priests that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, approved by the highest authority in the Church, states in paragraph 299 that ‘The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. [His Eminence cites a widely circulated but inaccurate translation of GIRM 299. We’ve been over and over this ground.] The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the centre toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.’

A clarification from the CDW in September 2000 addressed the question as to whether GIRM 299 excludes the possibility of celebrating Mass ‘versus absidem’ (ie ‘eastward’ facing), and confirmed that it does not. [That same CDW clarification also explained the Latin of 299.] But it also ‘reaffirms that the position towards the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier’. [“Communication” of what?] Thus the expectations expressed in GIRM 299 remain in force whenever the Ordinary Form of Mass is celebrated.  [This is a false conclusion.  More, below.]

Finally, may I emphasise that the celebration of the Church’s Liturgy is not a place in which priests are to exercise personal preference or taste. [His Eminence is right, of course.  However, Card. Sarah’s appeal was based on a great deal more than taste or preference.  To reduce this to a question of “taste” is a disservice to the serious issue of our worship and our identity.] As the last paragraph of the GIRM states so clearly, ‘The Roman Missal, though in a diversity of languages and with some variety of customs, must in the future be safeguarded as an instrument and an outstanding sign of the integrity and unity of the Roman Rite’ (399).

+Cardinal Vincent Nichols

Archbishop of Westminster

On the conclusion the Cardinal makes about versus populum being the “expected” orientation in the Ordinary Form….

With due respect to His Eminence, no.  That’s not right.

A consultation of the Latin edition of the Missale Romanum (which is the normative text) shows that, many times in the GIRM, the priest is described as “versus ad populum… having turned to the people”.  Elsewhere, he is described as “ad medium altare deinde reversus … then having turned back again to the middle of the altar”.

This description of the priest as turning back and forth between altar and people occurs again and again in the GIRM.  Have a look (e.g., 24, 146, 154, 157, 158, and 165; and also look at 181, 185, 243, 244, 257, 268).

This same description (prescription, actually) of the priest turning to the people and then back to the altar is found, for merely one example, at the time of the “Ecce Agnus Dei” at 132 in the Ordo Missae in the Missale Romanum.  The priest is described as “versus ad populum“, which presumes that he wasn’t “turned to the people” before.  After the people respond with their “Domine, non sum dignus“, the priest is described as “versus ad altare… “.   “133. Et sacerdos, versus ad altare, secreto dicit… And the priest, having turned to the altar, says quietly:…”.

The priest (sometimes the deacon) is repeatedly described at turning to the people and then turning back to the altar.

So, no, the GIRM does NOT favor versus populum celebration of the Ordinary Form.

But you have to have recourse to the Latin to see that.

Moderation queue is ON.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
28 Comments

ASK FATHER: I have no one to ask to be godparent for my baby.

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I have a baby due in a few weeks and it is, of course, my responsibility to baptize him promptly in the Catholic Church . I have attended the required class and paid the fee at my parish; however, I honestly have no one I can ask to serve as a Godparent. My friends and family live across the country and I hardly know anyone in my new area. I don’t want to delay baptism until I can travel home (several months after birth). My parish is holding firm to this “preference”. Must there be a Godparent? Thanks for your wisdom and guidance!

First, congratulations.

Canon 872 says that there should be a sponsor “insofar as possible” (quantum fieri potest).  This means that a sponsor isn’t required for the validity of the sacrament.  Nevertheless, it is important to have at least one. Can. 873 makes provision for two, but no more than that.  It also says that if there are two, there must be one male and one female.

Anecdotally, it seems that, as families get smaller, as folks move more frequently, and as fewer people actually practice their faith, it is getting more difficult to find good godparents.

It could be useful for parishes to provide a roster of good, faithful, committed Catholic parishioners willing to serve as godparents for those, like our interlocutor, who are in a bind.  Perhaps could be a good apostolate for some lay people to start up, a Confraternity St. John the Baptist for Baptismal and Confirmation Sponsors.

St. John the Baptist, by the way, is the patron saint of godparents, not St. Vito of Corleone.  Although, there is potential in being able to run your finger down the roster of willing parishioners and saying “I’ll give you a Sponsor you can’t refuse.”

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Canon Law, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , ,
22 Comments

More deception in the war on Card. Sarah

Speaking at a liturgy conference in London, Card. Sarah, clearly not acting in his role as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, made a personal appeal to priests to say Mass ad orientem and the world is coming down on his head.

Sarah’s unofficial appeal prompted a quick official response from the local Archbishop of Westminster, Card. Nichols as well as a clarification from Jesuit spokesman at the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Lombardi (which may have been the last official thing he did there [UPDATE: Greg Burke takes over on 1 August.]) via a communique replete with problems.

For example, Fr. Lombardi wrote (I include the typos in the original English version released):

Pope Francis, for his part, on the occasion of his visit to the Dicastery for Divine Worship, expressly mentioned that the “ordinary” form of the celebration of the Mass is that expressed in the Missal promulgated by Paul VI, while the “extraordinary” form, which was permitted by by Pope Benedict XVI for the purposes and in the ways explained in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificium, must not take the place of the “ordinary” one.

That was Lombardi.

Now look at what Fr. Thomas Rosica, hyper-visible when events at the Holy See require additional English language spin, added to the Press Office communique in a daily news summary blurb which he sends out to newsies, et al.

Fr Lombardi notes that Pope Francis made this view clear to Cardinal Sarah during a recent audience, stressing that the ‘Ordinary’ form of the celebration of Mass is the one laid down in the Missal promulgated by Paul VI, while the ‘Extraordinary’ form, permitted in certain specific cases by Pope Benedict XVI, should not be seen as replacing the ‘Ordinary’ form.

There is a problem in the communique itself and a worse problem in Rosica’s spin of the communique.

Regarding the communique itself, in the Letter which Benedict XVI sent out with Summorum Pontificum, we read: “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.”

Note that “in principle”, or perhaps better “de iure”. “De facto”, however, because of the fury of hell that bishops would rain down on priests who dared to say Mass in the way it was said for centuries, priests needed permission.  They didn’t need it legally.  They needed it practically.

On the other hand, while it is true that the communique points out that in Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict laid out criteria for the celebration of Holy Mass in the traditional form, what Rosica did with that little interpolation “in certain specific cases” was to make Summorum Pontificum itself seem more restrictive than it is.  In fact, the “certain specific cases” mentioned by Rosica are, as it turns out from a reading of Summorum Pontificumpretty much whenever and wherever any priest whosoever wants to say the older form of Mass.

I wonder if anyone in the Holy See Press Office has ever read Summorum Pontificum and Benedict’s Letter.  I wonder if anyone there read the whole of Card. Sarah’s address in London.

Think about this.  Rosica’s interpolation “in certain specific cases” applies also to the Novus Ordo.

Can. 932. 1 says that Mass is to be in a sacred place unless necessity requires that it be said somewhere else, and in that case it must be a suitable place.   That means just about anywhere where Catholic sensibilities aren’t horrified.  GIRM 288 says Mass can be in a “respectable place”.  Can. 933 says that a bishop can permit that Mass be said in a non-Catholic church.  The law also says when Mass can be said and who can say Mass.   It also says that the language of Mass in the Roman Rite is LATIN. All of this is to say that there are certain conditions laid down for the celebration of Mass in either Form.

Also, if memory serves, this isn’t the first time that Fr. Rosica seems to have added extra material when reporting.  During the Synod on the Family, he was called out for doing just that.  HERE

Finally, Fr. Lombardi’s press communique concluded

“All this was expressly agreed during a recent audience give by the pope to the said Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.”

How did Rosica frame that in his daily blurb?

Fr Lombardi notes that Pope Francis made this view clear to Cardinal Sarah during a recent audience,…

See what he did there?

Friends, as this develops, keep your eyes open.  What is going on here is important for more than just a liturgical motive… as if that weren’t important enough by itself!  We are our Rites!  This has to do with the status quaestionis of our Holy Church’s leadership and what course is being plotted.  This underscores the tremendous division which yawns ever wider.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
52 Comments

ASK FATHER: How to have ‘ad orientem’ Mass in a gymnasium church?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

We currently have a gymnasium-like church, with a wooden table for an altar.
We have no high altar behind it. How would we face east and Cdl. Sarah suggests for Advent if we don’t?

First, I hope that for Father’s sake and for the sake of the congregation, you will indeed have the chance to benefit from ad orientem worship.

Remember that celebrating “towards the East” is symbolic.  It doesn’t have to be the literal geographic East.  So long as you are all facing the same direction, you are symbolically facing the East whence our forebears – from the very earliest days – thought Christ would return in glory.  Thus, we turn to the Lord who is coming.   Given that the liturgical season of Advent is about getting ready for the “coming of the Lord”, really for the Second Coming more than the First, the beginning of Advent is an appropriate time begin offering Mass ad orientem.

There’s no need for reredos. Just put six tall candles on either side of the crucifix (and tabernacle if possible) on the back of the altar.  The priest can then simply step around to the front.  Instead of facing the congregation like an adversary or an entertainer (Mass adversus populum?), he and the congregation will be united in their orientation in a highly effective, manifest way.

Easy-peasy.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged
20 Comments

Jesuit v. Jesuit

There are a few notable exceptions, but there is a general rule that Jesuits don’t have much of a grasp or sense of liturgy.  Perhaps you know the old chestnut: “As lost as a Jesuit in Holy Week”, to describe someone who doesn’t have a clue.

On twitter, that Fr. James Martin, SJ, tweeted:

That’s just dumb.

Now I turn to one of those exceptional Jesuits who does know something about liturgy, Fr. James V. Schall, SJ. Today he posted about Card. Sarah’s invitation at Crisis:

The history of “Mass with the priest’s back facing the people” has been a long and amusing one. Let it be said from the beginning that no priest ever thought that he was celebrating Mass with his back to the people. No priest of any age or place ever said to himself: “Now that I am about to consecrate the Host, I will turn my back to the people.” He and everyone were turning to the Lord. That whole imagery of “back to the people” was dreamed up to promote a theological cause. It wanted the Mass to be understood not what it is, a sacrifice, but a friendly meal. The priest became a host or a “president,” as he is often called. He is a “presider,” awful term. Even worse is it when the priest is seen to be a “master of ceremonies” or an actor, greeting and joshing everyone.

And there’s this nugget: “orientum“?

Anyway, there is more over at Crisis.

UPDATE:

And there’s also this one:

From Fr. Schall’s piece:

The Mass is not a one-act play in which the priest takes the part of Christ in a short skit. It is a sacred rite, the way that Christ taught us to be the one proper way to worship his Father. The Mass is not an entertainment designed to keep us alert and amused. The worst effect of Mass with a priest facing the people is that the priest becomes the center of the show. His personality increases when it should decrease. He is the actor who calls attention to himself performing. He is responsible for the action that circles around him. This phenomenon is especially vivid in “theater-in-the-round” churches. The altar should be an altar, not just another table.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
18 Comments

ASK FATHER: How to “reclaim” my property for the Lord after a Hindu procession goes by?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Thank you for all of the amazing information you share with us each day on your website. I have learned so much in the past 6 months. I have a question that I would like your advice on:I just had a local Hindu temple process past my house carrying a chariot with the deity Skanda Sashti while singing hymns. What would you recommend I do to “reclaim” my property for the Lord? Sprinkle holy water around property line while praying? Thanks for your insights.

I think Skanda Sashti is a song about a deity, but no matter.

By all means use Holy Water around your place and even blessed salt.

You could also ask the priest to come to your house and, using the older, traditional Roman Ritual, bless a mess of salt and Holy Water and then also use it to bless your home, going into each and every room and space.

This is a good thing to do even if such an event hasn’t taken place.

If Father comes, it is good (though not obligatory or expected) to give him something for his time.  In Italy I was once given a live chicken.   In order to avoid hauling it around on my rounds, I ask them if they could, please, lightly kill it and drop it off when I didn’t have a whole bunch of other house blessings (as priests often do in Italy during Easter season).  They were happy to oblige, which helped me to avoid what I knew would be a pretty hasty and agitated meal.

Speaking of hasty and agitated, I am reminded of the scene in the Aubrey/Maturin novel by Patrick O’Brian‘s HMS Surprise.  (UK HERE) Dr. Stephen Maturin is conducting an experiment on some rats.  He has been feeding them madder (red stuff).  He was eventually going to dissect them to see if the red stuff had colored their bones, but hungry midshipmen ate them while he had been marooned on St. Paul’s Rock.  Note the spiffing partitive genitive in the first sentence of the following:

In time it appeared that Babbington had eaten of the Doctor’s rats; and that he was sorry now. ‘Why, no, Babbington,’ said Jack. ‘No. That was an infernal shabby thing to do; mean and very like a scrub. The Doctor has been a good friend to you – none better. Who patched up your arm, when they all swore it must come off? Who put you into his cot and sat by you all night, holding the wound? Who – ‘ Babbington could not bear it; he burst into tears. Though an acting-lieutenant he wiped his eyes on his sleeve, and through his sobs he gave Jack to understand that unknown hands had wafted these prime millers into the larboard midshipmen’s berth; that although he had had no hand in their cutting-out – indeed, would have prevented it, having the greatest love for the Doctor, so much so that he had fought Braithwaite over a chest for calling the Doctor ‘a Dutch-built quizz’ – yet, the rats being already dead, and dressed with onion-sauce, and he so hungry after rattling down the shrouds, he had thought it a pity to let the others scoff the lot. Had lived with a troubled conscience ever since: had in fact expected a summons to the cabin.
‘You would have been living with a troubled stomach if you had known what was in ‘em; the Doctor had -’
‘I tell you what it is, Jack,’ said Stephen, walking quickly in. ‘Oh, I beg your pardon.’
‘No, stay, Doctor. Stay, if you please,’ cried Jack.
Babbington looked wretchedly from one to the other, licked his lips and said, ‘I ate your rat, sir. I am very sorry, and I ask your pardon.’
‘Did you so?’ said Stephen mildly. ‘Well, I hope you enjoyed it. Listen, Jack, will you look at my list, now?’
‘He only ate it when it was dead,’ said Jack.
‘It would have been a strangely hasty, agitated meal, had he ate it before,’ said Stephen, looking attentively at his list. ‘Tell me, sir, did you happen to keep any of the bones?’
‘No, sir. I am very sorry, but we usually crunch ‘em up, like larks. Some of the chaps said they looked uncommon dark, however.’
‘Poor fellows, poor fellows,’ said Stephen in a low, inward voice.
‘Do you wish me to take notice of this theft, Dr Maturin?’ asked Jack.
‘No, my dear, none at all. Nature will take care of that, I am afraid.’

Stephen is eventually revenged in a creative way which also kept him true to his Hippocratic Oath.  Later in that same book, by the way, Jack debauches Stephen’s pet sloth with grog and turns it into an alcoholic.  Which it’s tough going for the Doctor on the high seas.

But I digress.

Do ask Father to come to bless your property.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, O'Brian Tags, Preserved Killick | Tagged , ,
5 Comments

Card. Nichols (Archd. Westminster) v. Card. Sarah about Mass ‘ad orientem’

Recently Card. Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, encouraged priests to begin saying Holy Mass ad orientem.

Of course we all knew that that would not be allowed to stand.

I now see this in the UK’s best Catholic weekly, The Catholic Herald.

Cardinal Nichols discourages priests from celebrating Mass ad orientem

The Archbishop of Westminster has told clergy Mass is ‘not the time for priests to exercise personal preference or taste’  [So, it’s reduced to “taste” is it?  I refer the readership, and His Eminence, to Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy.  UK HERE]

Cardinal Vincent Nichols has written to priests in Westminster diocese discouraging them from celebrating Mass facing east.

He issued the message to clergy days after the Vatican’s liturgy chief Cardinal Robert Sarah invited priests to celebrate Mass ad orientem from Advent onwards.

Cardinal Sarah was speaking at a liturgical conference in London.

Following Cardinal Robert Sarah’s appeal at the Sacra Liturgia conference in London, Cardinal Nichols wrote to priests reminding them that, “the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, approved by the highest authority in the Church, states in paragraph 299 that ‘The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the centre toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.’”  [The Cardinal Archbishop cited GIRM 299.  However, he cited a MISTRANSLATION of 299.  That is NOT what 299 really says.  As a matter of fact, even though the Congregation for Divine Worship clarified what the Latin of 299 meant in an official response to a dubium, people still cite the mistranslation.  What does 299 really say?  “Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit. … The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out.” The correct translation hangs on that quod.  More on this below.]

While he noted that the Congregation for Divine Worship had confirmed in 2009 that this instruction still allows for Mass to be celebrated facing east, the cardinal wrote: “But it also ‘reaffirms that the position towards the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier’. Thus the expectations expressed in GIRM 299 remain in force whenever the Ordinary Form of Mass is celebrated.”  [First, it really doesn’t “make communication easier”.  Also, “communication” of what?]

Cardinal Nichols said that Mass was not the time for priests to “exercise personal preference or taste”, and “as the last paragraph of the GIRM states so clearly, ‘The Roman Missal, though in a diversity of languages and with some variety of customs, must in the future be safeguarded as an instrument and an outstanding sign of the integrity and unity of the Roman Rite’ (399).”  [Let me simply ask. Has His Eminence also made a dramatic public appeal to priests to obey the rubrics in other respects?  I’m sincerely asking this because I don’t know if he has or not.]

After the Sacra Liturgia Conference last week, Cardinal Sarah paid a personal visit to Cardinal Vincent Nichols.

Meanwhile, [no less an oracle than] Fr Antonio Spadaro, [SJ] a papal adviser and editor of the influential journal La Civiltà Cattolica, has shown his support for Mass facing the people on Twitter.  [So what?  BTW… Spadaro is deeply fascinated with Pier Vittorio Tondelli and he has  studied him and written about him extensively.]

Following Cardinal Sarah’s widely reported comments, Fr Spadaro tweeted quotes from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, such as: “The altar should be built apart from the wall in such a way that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people” and “the priest, facing the people and extending and then joining his hands, invites the people to pray.”  [This is a DECEPTIVE.]

Card. Sarah, during his address in which he made his appeal for ad orientem worship, also said:

At this point I repeat what I have said elsewhere, that Pope Francis has asked me to continue the liturgical work Pope Benedict began (see: Message to Sacra Liturgia USA2015, New York City). Just because we have a new pope does not mean that his predecessor’s vision is now invalid. On the contrary, as we know, our Holy Father Pope Francis has the greatest respect for the liturgical vision and measures Pope Benedict implemented in utter fidelity to the intentions and aims of the Council Fathers.

Here’s the problem with the Spadaro blurb at the end.

First, just because an altar is built in such a way that Mass can be celebrated “facing the people” (otherwise known priest and people in a closed circle focusing on themselves), that doesn’t mean that Mass must be celebrated that way.

Second, the current rubrics in the Ordinary Form’s Missale Romanum has the words “ad populum conversus”, which, were Spadaro paying attention to what the Missal really says, means, “having turned around toward the people.”  It means that in Italian, too, by the way.  Note also that the concept of “facing” isn’t included.  In a nutshell, what is behind that “facing” is a directive to the priest to turn around.  That means that the priest wasn’t “facing the people” before.

More about GIRM 299, which was mistranslated.

Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments issued a clarification (Prot. No. 2036/00/L) regarding 299 in the Latin GIRM. That clarification says:

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani [aka GIRM] constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, 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.

I gave you a correct translation, above.

Finally, about reducing this all to a matter of taste.

NO.

There are serious theological and spiritual reasons for chosing the orientation of Holy Mass, one way or the other.  There is nothing shallow about this matter.

Again, I refer the readership to the aforementioned book by Ratzinger, not to mention also Turning Towards The Lord by my friend Fr. Lang. UK HERE   And then there’s the amazing work of Klaus Gamber. UK HERE

Ratzinger, and Lang after him, speak about the eschatological meaning of ad orientem worship.  Not exactly shallow.  Gamber argues that the single most damaging misapplication of the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council was the turning around of altars.  Not exactly shallow.

Cardinal Sarah said: “I ask you to implement this practice wherever possible […] with a pastor’s confidence that this is something good for the Church, something good for our people.”  In his talk, His Eminence laid out his reasons for this appeal to priests.

Card. Nichols has a different perspective. Fine. I would only respond, please, let’s have a real reason for such a perspective.

To reduce the question of orientation of Holy Mass to a matter of “taste” is to avoid the serious questions inherent in the orientation of Holy Mass.

Moderation queue is ON.

UPDATE: 

The Machine has begun to grind away at Card. Sarah’s credibility.

Spadaro, SJ, sent out a tweet with a photo/image of a communique from the Holy See Press Office. “Chiarimenti… Clarifications on the celebration of Mass.”  It is dated 11 July.

16_07_11_Spadaro_tweet

Here is the image itself.   As of this writing I have not found the text on the Holy See’s website or anywhere else.

This says, in effect, that Card. Sarah did not say anything official.  Fine.  He didn’t.  Then it goes a bit off the rails.

16_07_11_Chiarimenti

Beginning with “Perciò…”

Therefore, it is good to recall that in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (GIRM), which contains the norms relative to the Eucharistic celebration and still fully in force, at n. 299 it reads: “Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.  Altare eum autem occupet locum, ut revera centrum sit ad quod totius congregationis fidelium attentio sponte convertatur” (namely: [It continues in Italian … which in English is:] The altar is to be constructed detached from the wall, in order to go round it easily and celebrate turned toward the people, which thing is suitable where it is possible.  The altar is then situated in a way so as really to constitute the center towards which the attention of the faithful spontaneously converges”). [End Italian “translation” of the Latin – I will add that separating an altar from the wall doesn’t automatically draw everyone’s attention to it.  For instance, many churches were designed to draw the eye to the main altar, which in the case of many older churches was at the wall.  Also, the Italian “translation” also gets the Latin wrong.  What’s wrong with these people?]  For his part, Pope Francis, on the occasion of his visit to the Dicastery of Divine Worship, mentioned specifically that the “ordinary” form of the celebration of Mass is that which is foreseen in the Missal promulgated by Paul VI, [Yep… and…so?] while that which is “extraordinary”, which was permitted by Benedict XVI [OOPS.  wrong.] for the purpose and the manner explained by him in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, should not take the place of that which is “ordinary”.  [Look at the Letter which Benedict sent out with Summorum Pontificum. Benedict wrote: “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.”   Note that “in principle”.  De facto, however, because of the fury of hell that bishops would rain down on priests who dared to say Mass in the way it was said for centuries, priests needed permission.] There are not, therefore, foreseen new liturgical directives beginning with next Advent, as some has improperly deduced from some of the words of Cardinal Sarah, and it is better to avoid the use of the expression “reform of the reform”, in making reference to the liturgy, given that sometimes is was the source of misinterpretatations. [Card. Sarah said in his now famous speech “I do not think that we can dismiss the possibility or the desirability of an official reform of the liturgical reform”.  But what could these misinterpretations be?]  All this was mutually expressed in the course of a recent audience granted by the Pope to the same Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. [The Bolletino of 9 July says that Card. Sarah had an audience. ]

There are a couple of misleading notes in this communique along with an ominous note about the audience.

So, there it is.  The discrediting is in full swing now.

Some of that language seemed vaguely familiar.  I rummaged around and found that in February of 2015 Pope Francis made some off-the-cuff remarks to clergy in Rome.  HERE  You decide.

ASIDE: Am I wrong, or did Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger use the phrase “reform of the reform”?   Either way, I think that Fr. Joseph Fessio (an old student of Ratzinger) popularized it.

Also ASIDE: If we are to abandon the phrase “reform of the reform”, doesn’t that imply that we are to abandon the concept of “reform of the reform” as well?  What, then, would the “mutual enrichment” of the two Forms in the Roman Rite foreseen by Benedict XVI look like?  Wouldn’t that – ironically – make the Novus Ordo into the proverbial fly in amber which many liberals accuse the Traditional Roman Rite of being?

In his talk in London last week, Card. Sarah said in April 2015, Pope Francis asked him “to study the question of the ‘reform of the reform,’ looking at how the two forms can enrich one another.”

In any event, we must keep an eye on Card. Sarah even as we keep him in our prayers.

Moderation queue is ON.

UPDATE:

The English of the Communique is out.

16_07_11_Chiarimenti_English_marked

 

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, The Drill | Tagged , ,
46 Comments