Believe it or not, this is a Novus Ordo

  • Thread starter Thread starter JNB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By the by, has anyone been able to proffer abuses from the GIRM, because I really don’t see any.
Click to expand...
they are offering the sacrifice on the wrong altar. the dedicated altar for that church is the free-standing altar.
GIRM 303. In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.

In already existing churches, however, when the old altar is positioned so that it makes the people’s participation difficult but cannot be moved without damage to its artistic value, another fixed altar, of artistic merit and duly dedicated, should be erected and *sacred rites celebrated on it *alone. In order not to distract the attention of the faithful from the new altar, the old altar should not be decorated in any special way.(emphasis added)
Click to expand...
the dedication of an altar is not insignificant. ignoring it and pretending that it is not there, turns the Mass that is in these pictures into a political statement of individuals, albeit, many individuals.

in GIRM 299 “…facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” from the protocol by the Congragation of Divine Worship "Before all else, it is 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."

expedit (expedio, expedire) is usually ‘advantageous, useful, expedient’ but is translated as ‘desirable’ in the english GIRM. it is referring to an altar ‘separated from the wall.’ note that it is not ‘whenever possible’ but ‘wherever possible.’ to face the wall then is ‘undesirable’ and in this place, facing the people is possible. while facing the wall is not excluded, why is it better to do what is undesirable or less desirable?

the protocol goes on to say that the priest and the assembly are ideally and ultimately facing God.

don’t get me wrong. i am all for the Sacrifice of the Mass being a reverent, fitting gift to the Father. those that have turned the Mass into a theatrical tea party won’t get an ounce of pity from me. i’m sick of those egomaniacs. but running off to the other extreme isn’t the answer either. if we, all of us, can’t worship God as He deserves, without reference to the direction the priest is facing, then we don’t have any business walking in the door. if i cannot rightly praise God until the priest turns his back, then i’ve definitely got a problem that will just be masked over when the priest does turn his back.

for all of those who advocate the Traditional Latin Mass, i agree that we have a problem. i just don’t think we need a time machine to fix it.
 
You people are no help at all. Yes, I read the links. That still doesn’t clarify my question about the Birmingham bishop.

Does a bishop, in his diocese, have the authority to forbid the celebration of the new Mass facing away from the people?

I understand the instructions in the GIRM about “turns to face the people,” “turns to face the altar.” I get all that. What I want to know is does a bishop have the power to forbid the practice.

I understand Bishop Foley sits on the board of EWTN so he must be pretty orthodox, dare I say conservative, so I can’t imagine he’s promoting some modernist agenda. This article says Bishop Foley was issuing his decree as “particular law for the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama.”

So, my question again is: Does a bishop have the authority to forbid a practice that the Holy See has, apparently, not forbidden?

Come on, all you canon lawyers, instruct the ignorant (me). 👋
 
Does a bishop, in his diocese, have the authority to forbid the celebration of the new Mass facing away from the people?
Click to expand...
according to the article linked to by bear06, he cannot forbid a valid option given by the vatican, but can regulate how the choice is made between the various options. i have not seen the text that the article cites, so i cannot say that the article cites that text well. the article is biased toward the option of facing the wall, and is rather liberal in the citing of another text, which i was able to find.

however this is consistent with other decrees by the vatican. the bishop is the proper minister of the sacraments and celebrant of the liturgies in his diocese. he ‘deputizes’ the priest to celebrate the sacraments on his behalf. the idea is that he can’t be everywhere at once. in essence, all Masses are his Masses. the priest exercises his duties in a particular place at the will of the bishop. so while the bishop cannot make particular law in conflict with the Church, he can dictate when and how choices are made. Foley can simply give conditions under which facing the people is the only possible choice.

this need not be complicated. he can simply state something like “when celebrating the Mass in the presence of the faithful, the priest shall use the more desirable form.” (see GIRM 299) it amounts to telling the priest to do what he would do. that’s legal, though maybe unfair or unwise. i have read other instances of things like this, but i can’t really cite any now. one that comes to mind is mahony’s odd psycho-drama “gathered faithfully together.” but it is not exactly the same thing.
 
40.png
JustSomeGuy:
they are offering the sacrifice on the wrong altar. the dedicated altar for that church is the free-standing altar.

the dedication of an altar is not insignificant. ignoring it and pretending that it is not there, turns the Mass that is in these pictures into a political statement of individuals, albeit, many individuals.

in GIRM 299 “…facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” from the protocol by the Congragation of Divine Worship "Before all else, it is 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."

expedit (expedio, expedire) is usually ‘advantageous, useful, expedient’ but is translated as ‘desirable’ in the english GIRM. it is referring to an altar ‘separated from the wall.’ note that it is not ‘whenever possible’ but ‘wherever possible.’ to face the wall then is ‘undesirable’ and in this place, facing the people is possible. while facing the wall is not excluded, why is it better to do what is undesirable or less desirable?

the protocol goes on to say that the priest and the assembly are ideally and ultimately facing God.
Click to expand...
I think you are really stretching things to make that citation fit your assumption. Assumption Grotto is an old church with an existing fixed altar. That altar was not UN-dedicated. So it isn’t a case of ignoring a dedicated altar but rather chosing between two dedicated altars. In many churches that offer the indult Mass as well as the normative Mass, there are two altars in use. Also, the paragraph that you quoted could be read to mean that the Mass is always celebrated on just one altar per Mass, not necessarily that only one altar in that Church can ever be used. Large churches and cathedrals often have multiple altars where Mass is celebrated.

At most, you might have a priest not following the directives of his Bishop (I have no idea is the Bishop approved this or not) but that still doesn’t make it a GIRM violation.
 
40.png
JustSomeGuy:
they are offering the sacrifice on the wrong altar. the dedicated altar for that church is the free-standing altar.
GIRM 303. In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.
Click to expand...
In already existing churches, however, when the old altar is positioned so that it makes the people’s participation difficult but cannot be moved without damage to its artistic value, another fixed altar
Click to expand...
, of artistic merit and duly dedicated, should be erected and sacred rites celebrated on it alone. In order not to distract the attention of the faithful from the new altar, the old altar should not be decorated in any special way.
Click to expand...
Canon Law has a specific definition of what a ‘fixed altar’ is.
Can. 1235 §1 The altar or table on which the eucharistic Sacrifice is celebrated is termed fixed if it is so constructed that it is attached to the floor and therefore cannot be moved; it is termed movable, if it can be removed.
Click to expand...
§2 It is proper that in every church there should be a fixed altar. In other places which are intended for the celebration of sacred functions, the altar may be either fixed or movable.
Click to expand...
Can. 1236 §1 In accordance with the traditional practice of the Church, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone, indeed of a single natural stone. However, even some other worthy and solid material may be used, if the Episcopal Conference so judges. The support or the base can be made from any material.
Click to expand...
§2 A movable altar can be made of any solid material which is suitable for liturgical use.
Click to expand...
Having been to Assumption Grotto, there is a fixed altar of stone, which Father Shuy is shown using, and a wooden movable altar which is more commonly used.

GIRM 303 applies to the fixed altar, not the movable altar.
 
Dr. Bombay:
Ah, so the Bishop in Alabama was…lying?..misinformed?..just wanted to pull a power trip?..what? :confused:
Click to expand...
Actually, to read what Bishop Foley did shows that he only proposed to forbid the Mass celebrated Ad Orientem…for those Masses which are brodcast live on television. This seemed to single out EWTN and their Daily Mass. There was lots of confusion in this diocese and I recently spoke with him on a retreat…He did not forbid the Mass said Ad Orientem said when not televised and actually EWTN voluntarily complied with his proposal before the letter he wrote became “official” ( I have no idea how this process works, but that’s how it was explained to me.) So, technically there are NO restrictions, however, all televised Masses are said facing the people. If you go to the Masses at the Shrine most are said Ad Orientem.
 
40.png
Sanctus:
Actually, to read what Bishop Foley did shows that he only proposed to forbid the Mass celebrated Ad Orientem…for those Masses which are brodcast live on television. This seemed to single out EWTN and their Daily Mass. There was lots of confusion in this diocese and I recently spoke with him on a retreat…He did not forbid the Mass said Ad Orientem said when not televised and actually EWTN voluntarily complied with his proposal before the letter he wrote became “official” ( I have no idea how this process works, but that’s how it was explained to me.) So, technically there are NO restrictions, however, all televised Masses are said facing the people. If you go to the Masses at the Shrine most are said Ad Orientem.
Click to expand...
Got it.

What I don’t get is why he forbid televised Masses from being celebrated ad orientem. Is he afraid it might start a trend in America?

Not surprised the good Fathers at EWTN complied so willingly. That’s why the progressives and modernists are always going to have an advantage. It doesn’t matter what their bishops tell them, they’ll do what they want. They will not serve. The orthodox/conservatives, like the priests at EWTN, will always obey their bishops. So sad. :nope:

Actually, obedience and humility aren’t sad. What’s sad is how evil people can so easily take advantage of those virtues in others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top