Can priest only celebrate ad orientem?

[Brendan_64]

Legality is not the point.

Yes it is. And the bishop does not have total authority over everything a priest does.

As an example a bishop is not permitted to prevent a priest from celebrating an EF Mass because the priest now has the right under Church law to celebrate it. The priest does not have to seek permission from his bishop in order to exercise this right. If a bishop does not wish a priest in his diocese to celebrate the EF Mass, the priest does not have to follow the wishes of his bishop on this matter. The same applies to other areas where a priest has rights that are independent of the wishes of his bishop. The priest is not being disobedient because the bishop does not have the right to order a priest from exercising what are his rights under Church law.

The bishop too has a duty to respect the such rights granted to priests under Church law. The bishop has no authority over the priest with regards to such rights, as these rights are not granted through the office of bishop.

 

[Brendan]

The priest and the faithful owe him obedience in anything but sin.

I have a question for you ( actually two)

Since children owe their parents the same level of obedience ( in all but sin)

Do you feel that a parent has a right, under obedience to force a child to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on their toungue. Would it be an just act for a parent to ‘make their life miserable’ for any child that chooses to recive standing and\or in the hand.

Second question

GIRM 43 states that a local bishop has the right to specify a posture of standing or kneeling for the time between the Agnus Dei and the reception of Holy Communion.

Since the GIRM is another of those rulebooks from Rome, could a parent, under obedience, to insist that such a dead letter cannot grant authority to anyone, therefore the bishop had no actual authority to specify a posture and the child should kneel when the local bishop had chosen the posture of standing?

 

[clem456]

So do you feel that the Congregation for Divine Worship is not staffed by people?

If so, what obedience is owed to THEIR decrees and by whom?

And if the bishop has a preference that the priest does not do this, that that empower the bishop to act unjustly against the priest?

Dead letters? Do you think that the Holy See delegates authority to dead letters?

that is my point exactly. All parties involved, the priest, the bishop and the faithful, are obligated to give due obedience to the superior authority.

What you seem to be advocating that bishops should ignore the authorities that THEY are bound to if they do not feel it prudent.

If so, what would then be the obligation for any of us to give due obedience if we do not feel it

We are going around in circles. You are misrepresenting what I said and avoiding the point So there’s no point in continuing.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM
Can. 223 §1. In exercising their rights, the Christian faithful, both as individuals and gathered together in associations, must take into account the common good of the Church, the rights of others, and their own duties toward others.

§2. In view of the common good, ecclesiastical authority can direct the exercise of rights which are proper to the Christian faithful.

 

[pnewton]

The bishop too has a duty to respect the such rights granted to priests under Church law. The bishop has no authority over the priest with regards to such rights, as these rights are not granted through the office of bishop.

I agree, except it does little but beg the question of what is and is not a right. The General Instructions, for example, are just that - instructions. They do not specify who has the right to decide on options. A bishop could, for example, decide exclusive use of the propers for the entrance and communion, even though other options exist.

 

[Brendan]

Can. 223 §1. In exercising their rights, the Christian faithful, both as individuals and gathered together in associations, must take into account the common good of the Church, the rights of others, and their own duties toward others.

§2. In view of the common good, ecclesiastical authority can direct the exercise of rights which are proper to the Christian faithful.

First of all, you are operating under the presumption that the priest in question has NOT taken into account the common good. They might feel, as Pope Benedict did, that ad orientum offers spiritual benefits.

Secondly, I agree that the bishop is an ecclesial authority, but so is the CDWDS. Can not the CDWDS direct what rights can and cannot be used? If the CDWDS determines that a right CAN be excercised, what authority can declare that it cannot be used?

 

[pnewton]

If the CDWDS determines that a right CAN be excercised, what authority can declare that it cannot be used?

The authority under them can. That is how this works. Unless there is a specific declaration that something can be done and it is at the discretion of the priest do decide, then anyone else along the way (bishop or maybe another priest) can say, " Yes, we know that this can be done, but I am choosing not to have this done here."

I gave an example of music no one commented on. How about altar servers. Girls can serve as altar servers. The Holy See agrees and the Pope has used them. A bishop can restrict this. The Pope washed the feet of women this last Holy Thursday. A bishop can state that only men are to be used in his diocese. None of these actions would be disobedient to the Holy See.

 

[clem456]

First of all, you are operating under the presumption that the priest in question has NOT taken into account the common good. They might feel, as Pope Benedict did, that ad orientum offers spiritual benefits.

Secondly, I agree that the bishop is an ecclesial authority, but so is the CDWDS. Can not the CDWDS direct what rights can and cannot be used? If the CDWDS determines that a right CAN be excercised, what authority can declare that it cannot be used?

I am assuming nothing Brendan.
It’s not this complicated.
Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Brendan]

The authority under them can. That is how this works. Unless there is a specific declaration that something can be done and it is at the discretion of the priest do decide, then anyone else along the way (bishop or maybe another priest) can say, " Yes, we know that this can be done, but I am choosing not to have this done here."

I gave an example of music no one commented on. How about altar servers. Girls can serve as altar servers. The Holy See agrees and the Pope has used them. A bishop can restrict this. .

Then can a bishop MANDATE that altar girls be used?

Or if the bishop HAS given permission, can a pastor MANDATE that altar girls be used by an associate pastor?