Can priest only celebrate ad orientem?

[Brendan]

The GIRM contains instructions (not suggestions). Are we now saying that we (priest and/or faithful) do not have to follow the GIRM instructions at Mass.

I have not seen where anyone has suggested that. Can you reference a post where you feel that was made?

 

[ProVobis]

But the pastor and the bishop are the ones that have to deal with the parish. If, as it was in ProVobis’s parish, that every one complains, then the pastor and the bishop have a legitimate problem.

Just a little clarification. I’m sure not everyone complained but at that parish, I think he got a few questions as to why he was celebrating that way. How does a priest or bishop answer that question?

 

[maryjk]

The bishop can they point out that it would be hypocritical for the faithful to hold on to the options that they are granted by liturgical law, but begrudge others the options to which they are entitled?

Sorry, but you are assuming that people are logical and reasonable.

They aren’t.

And they vote with their feet.

 

[clem456]

On a scale 1 to 10, the importance of this issue for a priest ministering to our parish would be a big fat 0

Arrive late for last rites at the hospital because you were wrangling with the bishop about how you were standing at the altar? That would be a huge blunder. That would be a 10 on the scale of importance.

For the OP, how did your teachers at the seminary handle this question?

 

[ProVobis]

Arrive late for last rites at the hospital because you were wrangling with the bishop about how you were standing at the altar?

Yes, but how much time out of the Mass does the priest actually stand at the altar?

 

[YoungTradCath]

On a scale 1 to 10, the importance of this issue for a priest ministering to our parish would be a big fat 0

Arrive late for last rites at the hospital because you were wrangling with the bishop about how you were standing at the altar? That would be a huge blunder. That would be a 10 on the scale of importance.

For the OP, how did your teachers at the seminary handle this question?

I don’t think it is helpful to come up with admittedly unlikely possibilities. It’s like saying, “Well the bridge could fall tomorrow because all bridges eventually fall so therefore I won’t go across the bridge.”

I agree that things should not be blown out of proportion, but I also think we shouldn’t diminish the importance of this or that with extremely unlikely “argument-insurance-policies.”

 

[clem456]

Yes, but how much time out of the Mass does the priest actually stand at the altar?

Yea good question.
Everyone’s worried about whether a bishop can legally smack down a hypothetical priest who feels compelled to do it his way, however correct he may be.
I thought I would also throw out a hypothetical. Hypothetical priest having a hypothetical conversation with a hypothetical bishop about liturgical esoterica while parishioners are in need.

Like my wife (she’s actually more powerful than the bishop at my place) would say…“you can be correct, or we can all get along, take your pick”.
Getting along does sometimes benefit everyone involved.

 

[clem456]

YoungTradCath:
I really like your signature

A healthy deference to tradition should be taken for granted.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I really like your signature

Yes, I made it up as I was browsing dominicanablog.com

Their journal is exquisite. (I feel odd writing that word, but it’s true.)

 

[thistle]

I have not seen where anyone has suggested that. Can you reference a post where you feel that was made?

There are quite a few but if I can first summarise my impression. One post pointed out that the rubrics of the GIRM required the priest to face the people yet other posts are saying that a priest may celebrate ad orientum.
That’s what confusing me. The GIRM does not say ad orientum is okay but most of the thread posts say it is okay.
If the GIRM instructs a priest to face the people when celebrating the OF why are many here saying that the priest can basically ignore that and celebrate ad orientum if he wants.
I’m not saying what I have just said is correct but its my impression. Maybe this could be simply clarified for me.

• Does the GIRM instruct the priest to face the people when celebrating the OF?
• If yes, then why are many here saying the priest can basically face whatever way he wants?
• If no, then which sections of the GIRM permit the priest to celebrate ad orientum? If I read it that should clear away the fog.

 

[Brendan]

Sorry, but you are assuming that people are logical and reasonable.

They aren’t.

And they vote with their feet.

That’s OK, Christ had to deal with a similar situation in John 6, quite a few of His followers voted with their feet too, so the priest would be in good company.

If people are complaining and willing to leave the Church just because the priest isn’t looking at them for most of Mass, it really does make you wonder what kind of ground the seed has fallen on.

 

[clem456]

That’s OK, Christ had to deal with a similar situation in John 6, quite a few of His followers voted with their feet too, so the priest would be in good company.
You are comparing the rejection of the Eucharist In John 6 with a hypothetical priest getting scrupulous about liturgical discipline???
If people are complaining and willing to leave the Church just because the priest isn’t looking at them for most of Mass, it really does make you wonder what kind of ground the seed has fallen on.

**Misunderstanding the posture of the priest and it’s significance. **

 

[Brendan]

You are comparing the rejection of the Eucharist In John 6 with a hypothetical priest getting scrupulous about liturgical discipline???

Where did anyone mention scrupulosity on the part of the priest?. I certainly didn’t!

And yes, John 6 certainly IS relevant. The people did not understand the theological point being made, they preferred to abide in their misconceptions and preferences rather than learn and accept.

So they left.

 

[dans0622]

…

• Does the GIRM instruct the priest to face the people when celebrating the OF?
• If yes, then why are many here saying the priest can basically face whatever way he wants?
• If no, then which sections of the GIRM permit the priest to celebrate ad orientum? If I read it that should clear away the fog.

Hello,

The GIRM, in several instances, says something like “the priest, facing the people…” (for example, see. #124, 146, etc). If the GIRM is specifically instructing the priest to face the people at these times, the conclusion is that he is facing the other way the rest of the time he is at the altar. Does that make sense?

In some churches or at some altars, the only direction the priest can face, when he is at the altar, is toward the altar. For instance, last week Pope Francis celebrated Mass facing the altar because that’s the only way he could offer Mass at that altar. The GIRM recognizes this, at the very least.

I think it is also reasonable to conclude that since the GIRM, in fact, does *not *instruct all priests to celebrate “facing the people” all the time, it gives them the option to face either way–even if the altar is positioned in such a way that facing the people is possible.

I hope this helps.

Dan

 

[maryjk]

That’s OK, Christ had to deal with a similar situation in John 6, quite a few of His followers voted with their feet too, so the priest would be in good company.

If people are complaining and willing to leave the Church just because the priest isn’t looking at them for most of Mass, it really does make you wonder what kind of ground the seed has fallen on.

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.

Oh, and the people won’t necessarily leave “the Church.” Just that particular Mass. Our parish has Mass at 5 different times every Sunday. If people stop attending when the associate pastor is presiding and only attends Mass by the pastor, then that will cause problems for the pastor. That isn’t why the associate pastor is there.

 

[clem456]

Where did anyone mention scrupulosity on the part of the priest?. I certainly didn’t!

And yes, John 6 certainly IS relevant. The people did not understand the theological point being made, they preferred to abide in their misconceptions and preferences rather than learn and accept.

So they left.

You’re comparing the rejection of the Eucharist, the source and summit of life, to a hypothetical priest getting all in a knot over liturgical discipline with his hypothetical bishop. Not a good comparison.

Yesterday at RCIA our priest made a presentation on the rite of welcoming. Afterwards he asked for questions from the participants. One of the participants in the RCIA process was involved in a conversation with a parishioner who complained about the Mass because we no longer ring bells at the consecration. This candidate wanted to know what that was all about. Seems the passion of the conversation she heard gave her a certain impression about Catholicism she did not understand. The priest had to take time to explain to her what healthy respect for tradition means, before he even has a chance to talk about the Eucharist, Morality, etc…

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

One of the main problems of Modernism is not the external violations of traditions and disciplines, it is the exaltation of self. Personal opinion, personal desire, preference, self will, Exalting correctness over loving obedience.
Hypothetically speaking of course.

 

[Brendan]

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…

Here is Vatican I on the subject (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.

Note that all are required to give “hierarchical subordination and true obedience” not just to matters of Faith and Morals, but to matters of the governance of the Church

So if a priest elects to chose a posture that Rome as provided for, who exactly would have the right to tell him otherwise and still follow the dictates of the Church.

He is free to say Mass either versus poplulum or ad orientum, as he sees fit, in much the same way that a member of the faithful may choose to receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand. Can you imagine the outcry if the priest tried to force a person to kneel and receive on the tounge?

Rome gives certain freedoms, and we are obligated, by Pastor Aeternus, to respect that.

What is so wrong with that, especially since such teaching has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit.

 

[thistle]

Hello,

The GIRM, in several instances, says something like “the priest, facing the people…” (for example, see. #124, 146, etc). If the GIRM is specifically instructing the priest to face the people at these times, the conclusion is that he is facing the other way the rest of the time he is at the altar. Does that make sense?

In some churches or at some altars, the only direction the priest can face, when he is at the altar, is toward the altar. For instance, last week Pope Francis celebrated Mass facing the altar because that’s the only way he could offer Mass at that altar. The GIRM recognizes this, at the very least.

I think it is also reasonable to conclude that since the GIRM, in fact, does *not *instruct all priests to celebrate “facing the people” all the time, it gives them the option to face either way–even if the altar is positioned in such a way that facing the people is possible.

I hope this helps.

Dan

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.

 

[friarpark]

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.

 

[Brendan]

I. 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.

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.