The list of changes or “enrichments” of the Ordinary Form which the cardinal then proposes: orientation toward the Lord; genuflection before the elevation and after the Per ipsum (“Through him, with him, in him…”), communion kneeling and on the tongue; the use of Latin for some parts of the Mass “to rediscover the profound essence of the liturgy”; “praying the Canon in silence” in order to enhance its experience; the inclusion in the next edition of the reformed Missal of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar of the Extraordinary Form in a simplified, adapted form, and the Offertory prayers of the Extraordinary Form… Oh, I almost forgot: it is also proposed that, after the consecration, the fingers which touched the sacred Host remain united.
(KEEP IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE ENRICHMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY POPE FRANCIS IN THE ORDINARIATE'S DIVINE WORSHIP, THE MISSAL! THE AUTHER BELOW DOES NOT SEEM TO KNOW THIS FACT AND THAT WHAT POPE FRANCIS GAVE TO FORMER ANGLICANS, HE COULD GIVE TO THE ORDINARY ROMAN RITE!)
Press the title for the complete commentary on Cardinal Sarah's paper which I cannot fine an English translation. Fr. Anthony Ruff of Praytell translates this commentary from the French:
Cardinal Sarah Again Advocates “Reform of the Reform”
by Matias Augé
On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, La Nef (juillet-août 2017 – n. 294) offers a long position paper by Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. In it, the cardinal proposes and makes concrete his well-known position on the “Reform of the Reform” of the Mass liturgy of Paul VI. The text’s first part is historical and doctrinal, which leads to a second part with specific proposals.
Sarah says that “the liturgy has become a battlefield, the place where the champions of the pre-conciliar Missal and those of the reformed Missal of 1969 face off.” In this situation, the aim of his paper is “liturgical reconciliation.” While I appreciate the cardinals’ love for the liturgy and his good intentions, I think that his reasoning is not without some ambiguities.
Following Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Sarah claims that the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy is entirely consistent with the requirements of Vatican II. He asks: “How can we think that the Council wished to contradict what was in use before?”
Of course, Your Eminence: “contradiction,” no; but “reform,” yes. Sacrosanctum Concilium “desired to undertake a general restoration of the liturgy” (no. 21). And of course it was a matter of reforming the liturgy which was celebrated in the Church at that point in time.
Later, in support of his thesis, Sarah argues that it is “incorrect to hold that the two forms of liturgy express opposing theologies. The Church has a single truth which she teaches and celebrates.” Again, I must say: two “opposing” theologies, no; but “different,” certainly. As the cardinal himself says, quoting Benedict XVI, “the history of the liturgy consists of growth and progress.”
12 comments:
In thinking about this papacy and its inclination towards wishy-washy sentimental Liberation Theology of praxis, it occurred to me why the Church in Latin America is losing the faithful who will become majority Evangelical/Pentecostal within 50 years. It seems her first concern has become political and social, rather than, as the first and greatest commandment instructs, to love God with our whole being. In itself, that may not be the main reason while people are leaving the Church in droves. If in addition, one samples an Evangelical praise service, one immediately realises how real Jesus is, that the whole service is directed first and foremost to the first commandment. Let us compare this to the Novus Ordo liturgy.
1. People are expected to be broken playback devices repeating the same things, the same responses Mass after Mass. Do these responses come from the heart? Maybe for liturgists.
2. Then we have the Scripture readings read by laity like a computer, not coming from the heart so as to move the hearts of the worshipers. Yawn....
3. Then we have the same prayers READ, and I highlight READ outloud, by the priest Sunday after Sunday. Not much that speaks to the hearts of the people there.....
4. The whole thing has a community orientation, ad populum, no sacredness of event, just a borrrring community meal with a symbolic community supper.
5. And the music....you cannot compare today's Catholic Novus Ordo music to a Protestant "worship" service. Goodness, even the Protestants in the pews can sing in 4 part harmony.
6. There is little occasion for personal prayer, since everything is distractingly noisy and not directly relevant to the people in the pews, pre-configured and pre-planned text that everyone is supposed to listen to like automatons......borrrring.
The EF Mass on the other hand, is so different. It allows so much time for personal prayer to God, to come from one's own heart, authentic prayer in the silence using one's own words, in a ceremony that brings awe to the heart, a taste of heaven without words here on earth, revealing the awesome presence of the Lord, for him who is open, without the contrived elitist intellectualist liturgy of the ivory tower "liturgists".
As Cardinal Sarah has honestly said, the Church is in crisis, and as Benedict pointed out, it comes from the new liturgy.
If there are no fragments of the host on the priest's fingers, what's the purpose of having them remain "united" after the consecration?
No fragments mean no chance of desecration. And it's not as if the priest is going to touch anything on the altar that might "contaminate" his digits...?
The 1967 instruction 'Tres Abhinc Annos' said that the celebrant need not conjoin thumb and forefinger; instead he can rub them together over the chalice to get rid of any fragments. In recent times I have noticed that younger priests, Oratorians in particular, have adopted the more traditional option. This shows commendable respect for the Blessed Sacrament but when you see some laity receive in the left hand and then pick up the Host with the fingers (which is permissible in the NO) it is somewhat anomalous.
'Silent' Canon? If there is a polyphonic Sanctus and Benedictus it would make sense to split them and let the priest continue sotto voce while the singing is in progress. When, in 2009, Haydn's 'Harmoniemesse' was used in St Peter's, Pope Benedict was standing at the altar doing nothing for a not inconsiderable length of time.
Incidentally, Benedict was meticulous in observing the rubrics of the NO as set out in the GIRM, and never added anything, even if it might have restored some traditional elements.
PATFOTA? The Tridentine ones are very long and unsuitable for dialogue (it was tried and failed). The Dominican ones would suit the NO better.
Anon at 7:04pm: it is an acknowledgement of the infininate potency of the power of the substance. This scrupulous gesture respects that an infinitely small fragment has touched the fingers of the priest and and might remain. It is destined and intended to feed someone of the faithful and not be "wasted" falling to the ground. It is recovered by the ablutions and consummed by the priest. And still the chalice is scrubbed and the cloth saved and washed in a special manner. This is another reason for communion on the tongue, by the way.
My question was, "If there are NO fragments of the host on the priest's fingers, what's the purpose of having them remain "united" after the consecration?"
Your response was, If there are fragments..., this is why.
"Infinitely small" fragments are not, it seems, bread.
St. Thomas Aquinas: "If the change in the consecrated elements be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain." [ST III:77:4].
I Redemptoris Sacramentum we read, "The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament." (RS 4)
"Infinitely small" fragments are cannot, it seems, be "commonly considered bread."
Anon, makes sense. My point, as it is, is that the host is no longer bread. Bread itself is not a compound or element but a mixture making this denaturing event even easier. But it is being conveyed in its changed state to people who will chemically digest the bread and absorb the essence of the body of Christ. To be careful with the host under the circumstances seems both prudent and symbolically important. The movemwnts at the altar remind me of a surgeon or scientist taking great care that contamination does not occur. It can go both ways, too.
Anthony Ruff finally shows his full hand in the comments for this post. He does not believe that the magisterium is just the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. He seems to believe the theory (rejected by Paul VI in Mysterium Eccelsiae and again by John Paul II in Donum Veritatis) that theologians form a parallel magisterium. As such he tacitly admits that Paul VI and the Bishops at Vatican II did not understand fully what they were agreeing to when they signed the documents and implemented the reforms and when they made claims of continuity with what came before.
Ruff and friends should just be honest and say that when they use the term "Vatican II" they are not referring to the Ecumenical Council of the same name.
You are 100% correct about who the Magisterium is. It is the pope and bishops in union with him. There is no parallel Magisterium composed of non bishop theologians. They are advisors. My 1970's seminary taught what Fr. Anthony believes. It is the clericalism and immaturity of academics. You see how careful he is to defer to another academic but never doing so for orthodox bishops like Cardinal Sarah.
With all the problems with our current pope, he has put academics in their place by basically ignoring them.
If no fragments that might commonly be considered bread remain - infinitely small fragments would be included - then keeping united the fingers that have touched the host is unnecessary scrupulosity it seems to me.
If priests do things at the altar because "something" untoward "might" happen, then the liturgy might not be celebrated at all.
A host might be dropped on the floor, a chalice might be knocked over, the frescoes on the wall above the altar might come crashing down, scattering the sacred elements hither and yon, a seagull might fly in and snatch the host from the priest's hands at the elevation...
With regard to the question, another Cardinal Mueller. Reform of the Reform, to me, is DOA. Maybe me saying it will cause me to be proven wrong but, I'm more confident that I'll win the Power Ball than I am in seeing any substantive reforms made to the current missal during this papacy or, any succeeding papacy for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the FSSP had a record breaking number of ordinations this year, 19, which, in proportion, is remarkable.
Reactionary groups, too frequently populated by the psychically unhealthy, can be very popular in anxious times . . .
"Psychically unhealthy"???? Are we being Boo Yah'd, again?
Reacting to what, at least 500 years of history in what had been its current form being erased in the blink of an eye? Almost overnight, churches were being ransacked (to hell with the people who scrimped and saved to donate sacred fixtures etc. in memory of loved ones) and, in my opinion, iconoclasm (a heresy) replaced beauty and tradition. You can't blame a few people for being upset about that.
Post a Comment