Can priest only celebrate ad orientem?

[TimothyH]

I understand what you are saying but in other threads there have been heated arguments on this. In short, the rubrics adherents maintain that only what is said in the GIRM is permitted and it does not mean that if something is not mentioned it is allowed. For example, the GIRM does not state what the posture is for the faithful during the Lord’s Prayer and that is used to justify people holding hands or using the orans position. In the past I agreed with that but was persuaded eventually that if it is not in the GIRM then it is not permitted. That is why I now find it hard to accept that priests can face away from the people when the GIRM does not explicitly state it.

I had this exact same question.

How can the organs position be forbidden because it is not in the GIRM while the priest facing the same direction as the people not be forbidden because it is not in the GIRM?

-Tim-

 

[otjm]

One of the more public cases was when Bishop Foley, then Bishop of Birmingham, AL attempted to restrict the priests Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word from celebrating the EWTN Mass ad oriental.

The Friars appealed to Rome, and the CDWDS ruled that the Bishop did not have the authority to restrict an ad orientum liturgy, as it was a normative practice in liturgical law. The CDWDS DID rule that the bishop had the authority to choose what Masses in his diocese were televised.

I have not read the letter that Rome sent to the bishop.

However, having read a number of posts which Bro. JR has made, it just might be possible that what Rome told the bishop was that he did not have authority over the Franciscans - which is a whole different answer than saying that the bishop, who is the head liturgist for his diocese, could not determine the liturgy in his diocese.

For the simple reason that Franciscans, for example, have authority over their own liturgy, I would be hesitant to cite this letter for your position, without actually reading what it said. And I mean that literally, not a commentary by a news organization as to what the letter allegedly said.

 

[L_Marshall]

It certainly is possible and permissible for a priest to celebrate the Mass ad orientem, but like others have said, it’s very likely that the priest would receive negative feedback from his brother priests and parishioners. Pope Francis actually celebrated the Mass ad orientem publicly earlier this week, at the tomb of JPII.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/13_10_31_francis_ad_orientem_02.jpg

I have seen several pastoral situations where celebrating the Mass ad orientem has been made possible (for a limited time), and appeared to be welcome by the parishioners. One example is a parish in my town which still has its old high altar (which is attached a large raredos) intact. For an upcoming parish anniversary, the pastor is debating on celebrating the Mass on the high altar, since it is the altar that the parish originally used. So far, many of the parishioners seems on board.

 

[Brendan_64]

Sorry, but I see a new priest insisting on doing it “his way,” as a little child that is stomping his foot. “I will hold my breath until I turn blue. Then you’ll be sorry.”

Of course I don’t just see it this way for ad orientem. But anything that the new priest insists on doing against the wishes of the pastor and the bishop

So that begs the question, who is the Mass celebrated for? For the people, the pastor, the bishop, of for God? If liturgical law permits a priest to say Mass in a particular orientation, or a particular form, then that law exists for a reason.

If a priest is permitted under liturgical law to say Mass in a particular orientation then it really is nobody’s business, but God’s, what direction he faces. This is really not the business of the congregation, the bishop, the pastor as their wishes do not supersede liturgical law.

If people leave to go elsewhere because of this, then that’s there choice. The Church isn’t a democracy, and Mass isn’t said to please the people. Nor is the form of the Liturgy to be determined by the personal preferences of the diocesan bishop. It really is entirely up to the individual priest celebrating the Mass (within the terms of what is permitted by liturgical law).

 

[otjm]

So that begs the question, who is the Mass celebrated for? For the people, the pastor, the bishop, of for God? If liturgical law permits a priest to say Mass in a particular orientation, or a particular form, then that law exists for a reason.

If a priest is permitted under liturgical law to say Mass in a particular orientation then it really is nobody’s business, but God’s, what direction he faces. This is really not the business of the congregation, the bishop, the pastor as their wishes do not supersede liturgical law.

If people leave to go elsewhere because of this, then that’s there choice. The Church isn’t a democracy, and Mass isn’t said to please the people. Nor is the form of the Liturgy to be determined by the personal preferences of the diocesan bishop. It really is entirely up to the individual priest celebrating the Mass (within the terms of what is permitted by liturgical law).

The priest does act in a vacuum. He acts to draw souls closer to God. And so, his primary responsibility being to those souls, his personal desire to celebrate one way or the other is tempered by that duty.

The bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese. As such, if there are variations, it is within the bishop’s general authority within those variations to determine which of them shall be followed; the priest in not so authorized in general. To reduce the question to one of whether or not ad orientem can be practiced by any priest simply because it is in the GIRM is to miss a few other issues, the bishop’s authority being one of them.

But more specifically, to answer your dicta that it is nobody’s business how he celebrates Mass, as long as it is within something within the GIRM is to ignore that he has a higher duty to his parishioners than to act as if the Mass were his own personal statement of rubrics. He is not there to say Mass primarily for his own personal edification.

And that is not to weigh in on a different question, as to whether ad orientem is the preferred orientation. If ad oreintem is within the rules of the GIRM, then it is up to the bishop to lead on that issue; and if the bishop does not so lead, then one can take it up with Rome - perhaps not the most productive use of one’s time, as Rome has not seen fit to determine that it is going to enforce such a direction.

There are always going to be some parishes which would prefer ad orientem by a significant majority. That is well and good, and doing so (assuming one is not running afoul of the bishop) works for the increase of their spirituality. The reality is that the vast majority of Masses said appear to be ad populum in the US. While Rome may appear to favor ad orientem, they also appear to favor Latin, Greek and Hebrew in the prayers of the Mass, as well as Gregorian chant; and they should be presumed to be knowledgeable as to the actual practices. Which is to say, the actual practices are within the legitimate gamut of the law, and appear to be within the liturgical direction that the bishops, in their dicoeses, determine. We may think and feel mightily, that otherwise is better. But the “we” who do so are in a distinct minority, as would be the priest. His primary mission is to get souls to Christ, not to determine what is liturgically better, or what suits his fancy better. When he is ordained bishop, he will have time enough, and authority enough. And at that point, even more responsible for leading souls to Christ.

 

[Brendan]

I have not read the letter that Rome sent to the bishop.

However, having read a number of posts which Bro. JR has made, it just might be possible that what Rome told the bishop was that he did not have authority over the Franciscans - which is a whole different answer than saying that the bishop, who is the head liturgist for his diocese, could not determine the liturgy in his diocese.

For the simple reason that Franciscans, for example, have authority over their own liturgy, I would be hesitant to cite this letter for your position, without actually reading what it said. And I mean that literally, not a commentary by a news organization as to what the letter allegedly said.

Bishop Foley’s attempt to restrict the ad orientum liturgy was set out as diocesan particular law ( applying to the whole diocese). Rome required him to retract the whole thing, not just for monastic communities.

And if what you say was true, then if the bishop lacked authority to regulate the posture in an Franciscan community, then the bishop would also lack the authority to prohibit the broadcast of such a liturgy in a Francisican community. But that was not the case either

 

[Brendan]

The priest does act in a vacuum. He acts to draw souls closer to God. And so, his primary responsibility being to those souls, his personal desire to celebrate one way or the other is tempered by that duty.

Correct, and Rome gives the certain offices certain freedoms to determine how and under what circumstances the faithful are to be drawn.

The bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese. As such, if there are variations, it is within the bishop’s general authority within those variations to determine which of them shall be followed; the priest in not so authorized in general. To reduce the question to one of whether or not ad orientem can be practiced by any priest simply because it is in the GIRM is to miss a few other issues, the bishop’s authority being one of them…

Within the boundaries set by law. The Vatican has been clear on that bishops are not able to force the faithful into one posture or another for the reception of Holy Communion, or if they are to sit, stand or kneel after returning to the pew after receiving Communion.

The bishop can give permission for altar girls, but cannot mandate them

The list goes on and on.

Rome has given certain such freedoms to the faithful, to the celebrant to the pastor and to the bishop. It is not anyone else’s place to begrudge someone from exercising such freedom

And as I indicated in the section from Pastor Aeternus, doing so would be a violation of Church teaching on the Pope’s own role in establishing the liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

I have not read the letter that Rome sent to the bishop.

However, having read a number of posts which Bro. JR has made, it just might be possible that what Rome told the bishop was that he did not have authority over the Franciscans .

I would be hesititant to draw any generalization regarding the bishop’s authority over secular priest from a ruling made regarding religious priests. You have a good point, and one I too have learned from JR. I know the bishop is in charge of the liturgy. If I was a diocesan priest, I would ask for a clarification and do what the bishop wanted. There simply is no reason not to listen to the bishop on this matter.

 

[maryjk]

If people leave to go elsewhere because of this, then that’s there choice. The Church isn’t a democracy, and Mass isn’t said to please the people. Nor is the form of the Liturgy to be determined by the personal preferences of the diocesan bishop. It really is entirely up to the individual priest celebrating the Mass (within the terms of what is permitted by liturgical law).

But you are assuming that people would leave the Catholic Church.

Where I am assuming that they would simply leave that priest.

As I said our parish had 5 different Mass times for Sunday Mass. One of those used to have a considerable amount of chant. And Latin. It wasn’t very well attended. In fact, it looked like it was a daily Mass.

All of the other Masses were packed.

When our new pastor arrived, he changed that Mass to include more English and took out some of the chant. People started attending it.

So it eased up the attendance for the other Masses.

All of that for my point. If a new associate pastor comes in and changes how Mass is said. It could be ad orientem, with an extremely long homily, adding chant, adding Latin, removing chant or Latin; and it causes the pastor more work, it seems like the associate pastor would need to pull his fingers out of his ears and listen to his pastor.

It needs to be less of “I like it an it is allowed, so leave me alone.” An more of “what is allowed but will also bring more people to Christ?”

 

[Brendan]

It needs to be less of “I like it an it is allowed, so leave me alone.” An more of “what is allowed but will also bring more people to Christ?”

But that is EXACTLY the attitude you are talking about. Having the people in the pews or even the pastor saying to the associate “Only If I like it, is it allowed”

The fact is, it IS allowed, and we are called to accept under true obedience to Rome.

The liturgical law is specifically set down to Rome to bring people to Christ. When variations are permitted, it can only be to bring people to Christ. It can be no other way.

The roadblock would then be those who object to what Rome permits (and that goes both ways)

 

[maryjk]

But that is EXACTLY the attitude you are talking about. Having the people in the pews or even the pastor saying to the associate “Only If I like it, is it allowed”

The fact is, it IS allowed, and we are called to accept under true obedience to Rome.

True obedience to the associate pastor and his preference.

Since by demanding that he be allowed to do it his way, he is denying obedience to the pastor an possibly the bishop.

Think about it this way.
Would you say the same thing to an associate pastor that allowed CITH after hearing that the pastor of the parish put in altar rails so everyone could receive on the tongue? What if he said, if you prefer to receive standing, in the hand, line up here. Kneeling, over here. And yes, my Masses are the only ones that you can do this.

I have to say, that if my pastor an associate pastor were at odds like this, the parish wouldn’t stand a chance. Imagine if there were more than two priests at a parish. Each Mass would be a toss up of what to expect.

I can imagine this conversation between a mom and her child:

Mom, which way will the priest face today?
Depends who we have.
But, how long will Mass be?
Depends who we have. If it is Father X, we will be here for two hours. Father Y, an hour and if it is Father Z, 45 minutes.
Okay, what about Communion? Can I receive in my hands?
Sorry, honey, I won’t know until I see who have.
But what about the Latin? I like that.
Look, I have no idea. If we get Father A, yes, we will have Latin. Father B, no we won’t.

I*'m sorry. But I have no idea what Mass will be like. Each priest chooses his options. If it allowed by Rome, we get it. Sometimes.*

*But I can tell you one thing. I am sick of this. We are going over to St Whoever next week. At least they know what to expect.
*

 

[ProVobis]

Someone asked how long is a priest at the altar during the Mass. I read an account of a priest saying Mass the way Vatican II actually called for and he was facing east for 14 minutes of the Mass and was roundly criticized for it by many. He said he wishes he hadn’t done it because it was so profound and he knew he wouldn’t be “allowed” (my word not his) to do so again because of the dissension it would cause in the his parish.

A Pontifical Solemn High Mass (EF) also has the priest (in this case the bishop) away from the altar for a good portion of the Mass. Otherwise at the EF the priest stands for practically the whole Mass ad orientem or toward the north at the gospel.

 

[clem456]

But that is EXACTLY the attitude you are talking about. Having the people in the pews or even the pastor saying to the associate “Only If I like it, is it allowed”

The fact is, it IS allowed, and we are called to accept under true obedience to Rome.

The liturgical law is specifically set down to Rome to bring people to Christ. When variations are permitted, it can only be to bring people to Christ. It can be no other way.

The roadblock would then be those who object to what Rome permits (and that goes both ways)

But the hypothetical question is not about what is allowed. The question is, should the priest become so attached to his preference that he goes against the wishes of his bishop and his people, to whom he owes his loving obedience.
So then, we have a case of a bunch of correct people arguing with one another. Both sides have preferences. Both options are legal.

CCC
Christianity is not a religion of the book.

If the priest is the shepherd of souls, he should reflect this saying. He, as the shepherd of souls in his parish should reflect loving obedience to his superior, who is his bishop (assuming the bishop is not asking him to axe-murder his people), and look to the well being of his flock. His correctness in his preference is subordinate to higher considerations. Whether his bishop is correct in admonishing him to do things a different way is really irrelevant to this priest.

This is a textbook example of modern individualism… exaltation of the self above all other considerations, including love. If love is defined as “to will the good of the other” (Aquinas), how can this hypothetical priest be seen as loving his flock, If he exalts his own correctness, his own preferences and desires, above the peace of his flock, and above the desires of his superior? Is authority important in the Church, or is it not? His actions would not be willing the good (loving) his flock.

 

[Brendan]

True obedience to the associate pastor and his preference.

Since by demanding that he be allowed to do it his way, he is denying obedience to the pastor an possibly the bishop.

Aquinas defined the Virtue of Obedience as the submission of one’s will to will of the one who has the authority

Without the authority, there is no virtue of obedience.

So the question then becomes, does the bishop or the pastor have the authority to order a specific posture.

Think about it this way.
Would you say the same thing to an associate pastor that allowed CITH after hearing that the pastor of the parish put in altar rails so everyone could receive on the tongue?

Yes, of course I would. The pastor, or even the associate (or the bishop for that matter) do not have the authority to dictate the posture of the recpiennt. Liturgical Law provides for the free choice on the part of the reciepient to choose. Any attempt by anyone else would be an abuse.

I have to say, that if my pastor an associate pastor were at odds like this, the parish wouldn’t stand a chance. Imagine if there were more than two priests at a parish. Each Mass would be a toss up of what to expect.

But the fault would be with the pastor, in attempting to exercise power that he does not have.

Why would anyone desire that their pastor or bishop make such an attempt?

 

[Brendan]

But the hypothetical question is not about what is allowed. The question is, should the priest become so attached to his preference that he goes against the wishes of his bishop and his people, to whom he owes his loving obedience.

See my post above. Such a case would be no violation of the loving obedience that the associate owes his bishop.

Once again, I will reference Pastor Aeternus

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

So if the Holy See provides for the free choice on the part of the celebrant on certain elements of posture, would it be an act of obedience to Rome for a pastor or bishop to attempt to remove such freedom?

Would it be a positive thing for a bishop or a pastor to show disobedience to the liturgical directives given by the highest authority possible?

 

[Brendan]

Mom, which way will the priest face today?
Depends who we have.
But, how long will Mass be?
Depends who we have. If it is Father X, we will be here for two hours. Father Y, an hour and if it is Father Z, 45 minutes.
Okay, what about Communion? Can I receive in my hands?
Sorry, honey, I won’t know until I see who have.
But what about the Latin? I like that.
Look, I have no idea. If we get Father A, yes, we will have Latin. Father B, no we won’t.

I’m sorry. But I have no idea what Mass will be like. Each priest chooses his options. If it allowed by Rome, we get it. Sometimes.

But I can tell you one thing. I am sick of this. We are going over to St Whoever next week. At least they know what to expect.

How about this then

Mom, what opening hymn will be played at Mass?
I don’t know dear
What Eucharistic Prayer will the priest use
I don’t know that either…
How about the prayers of the faithful, what will they be?
No clue dear,

Will the homily be 5 minutes long, or 10?
Not sure Honey,

Will we use the Apostles Creed or the Nicean Creed
I don’t really know

How about when we get back from Communion, can we sit, or can I kneel.

I’'m not too sure, but I will tell you, I am sick of everyone using options
I’m going to go to Our Lady, Queen of Authorities were all options are removed and even the faithful have no choice in what we do.

 

[dans0622]

I understand what you are saying but in other threads there have been heated arguments on this. In short, the rubrics adherents maintain that only what is said in the GIRM is permitted and it does not mean that if something is not mentioned it is allowed. For example, the GIRM does not state what the posture is for the faithful during the Lord’s Prayer and that is used to justify people holding hands or using the orans position. In the past I agreed with that but was persuaded eventually that if it is not in the GIRM then it is not permitted. That is why I now find it hard to accept that priests can face away from the people when the GIRM does not explicitly state it.

Oh yes, I know some get rather excited about the Our Father issues. Let’s not go there. I think this is different for a couple of reasons. First, there *are *instructions as to what the priest is to do: he is to face the people at certain times (e.g., GIRM # 157). At other times, he is to face the altar (e.g., #158). So, there is obviously some turning around going on here, unless he is facing the people and the altar all the time. That certainly is possible. At other times, it is impossible. As you stated, there are no directions whatsoever as to what the people do with their hands.

Second, this is different because there have been several statements from the Congregation for Divine Worship stating that there is an option to face either way (see here, for one such statement: adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html ) I don’t know of any comparable statement from this Congregation regarding the Our Father issues. (If there is such a statement, I’d like to see it.)

Dan

 

[ProVobis]

Oh yes, I know some get rather excited about the Our Father issues. Let’s not go there. I think this is different for a couple of reasons. First, there *are *instructions as to what the priest is to do: he is to face the people at certain times (e.g., GIRM # 157). At other times, he is to face the altar (e.g., #158). So, there is obviously some turning around going on here, unless he is facing the people and the altar all the time. That certainly is possible. At other times, it is impossible. As you stated, there are no directions whatsoever as to what the people do with their hands.

I believe the Latin word used is “versus,” which means “having turned;” Instead the translators chose to word it “facing the people.”

You’re right. What people do at the Pater Noster is an entirely different thing.

 

[Brendan_64]

But you are assuming that people would leave the Catholic Church.

No I’m not. I said that** if** they choose to go elsewhere (i.e. to another Catholic church) then that’s there choice. And even of they did leave the Church, then that also would be their choice.

Where I am assuming that they would simply leave that priest.

As I said our parish had 5 different Mass times for Sunday Mass. One of those used to have a considerable amount of chant. And Latin. It wasn’t very well attended. In fact, it looked like it was a daily Mass.

And? Is the purpose of the Mass to appeal to the likes of the congregation or is it said for God?

All of the other Masses were packed.

Again, why would this determine what type of Mass a priest ought to say? Is the mass said for the people or for God?

All of that for my point. If a new associate pastor comes in and changes how Mass is said. It could be ad orientem, with an extremely long homily, adding chant, adding Latin, removing chant or Latin; and it causes the pastor more work, it seems like the associate pastor would need to pull his fingers out of his ears and listen to his pastor.

If it is permitted according to Liturgical Law , then it is permitted for a reason. the bottom line is that neither the congregation, pastor or bishop has any right to tell a priest how he ought to celebrate a Mass.

It needs to be less of “I like it an it is allowed, so leave me alone.” An more of “what is allowed but will also bring more people to Christ?”

It is not about people coming to mass because they like the style of the service. ‘Bums on seats’ do not equate to people coming to Christ.

The Mass should not be tailored to appeal to particular congregations. The amount of people a Mass might draw in should never be a consideration in deciding how it should be celebrated.

If we go down that route then why not provide comfy chairs instead of kneelers? Why not throw in free wireless internet access? Perhaps do away with all those old crusty hymns and throw in a few modern pop songs? Maybe even have the priest sing a ‘Christian rap’ version of the Our Father? Anything to draw in the punters.

 

[TimothyH]

Bishop Foley’s attempt to restrict the ad orientum liturgy was set out as diocesan particular law ( applying to the whole diocese). Rome required him to retract the whole thing, not just for monastic communities.

And if what you say was true, then if the bishop lacked authority to regulate the posture in an Franciscan community, then the bishop would also lack the authority to prohibit the broadcast of such a liturgy in a Francisican community. But that was not the case either

This is interesting.

A bishop cannot control a religious community in matters of internal discipline nor in matters of public worship. The bishop can make a rule about the Mass for his whole diocese but it does not apply to Franciscan communities. The bishop has no control over their Mass or other sacraments.

According to their own website however, The Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word are a Public Clerical Association of the Faithful. They are not even a Society of Apostolic Life but are a Public Association of the Faithful. A Public Association of the Faithful under full control of the bishop.

So they are Franciscan, exempt from control, but they are a Public Association of The Faithful under full control.

-Tim-