Can priest only celebrate ad orientem?

[Brendan]

Interesting article on the subject

reverendknow-it-all.blogspot.com/2010/11/reflection-on-liturgy-celebrated-ad.html

 

[maryjk]

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.

And there you go. In to never never land.

It is like when people say, they can hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer. And someone will comment, well, then if we can hold hands, we can dance around the church.

No, dancing around the church isn’t a prayerful position. So, that wouldn’t be a logical conclusion.

Just as “free wireless internet access” has nothing do to with telling an associate pastor that celebrating Mass ad orientem will cause problems.

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.

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]

Just as “free wireless internet access” has nothing do to with telling an associate pastor that celebrating Mass ad orientem will cause problems.

No one said that a pastor or a bishop could not tell an associate that such as Mass, in their opinion, would cause problems.

What the point is would be that the associate is free to use what liturgical options are made available to the celebrant of the Mass

 

[Brendan]

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-

There is an even greater contradiction.

If they are exempt form control, why did that exemption not extent to the broadcast of their Mass.

There have been some here who claimed that Rome only overruled Bishop Foley in that the Mass was a liturgy conducted by the Franciscans. But that does not address Rome noting that the Diocesan Bishop had control over what liturgies were broadcast in his diocese.

 

[maryjk]

No one said that a pastor or a bishop could not tell an associate that such as Mass, in their opinion, would cause problems.

What the point is would be that the associate is free to use what liturgical options are made available to the celebrant of the Mass

As my first post said, yes, an associate pastor would be allowed.

But maybe the real question is : would it be prudent?

Can a priest celebrate this mass in replacement of the mass facing the people… and could he do this without the permission of the bishop, nor be reprimanded
.
Thanks!

 

[runningdude]

I’m not clear what you are asking.

Are you asking if the priest can decide without permission to celebrate an EF Mass instead of the OF Mass or are you asking if the priest while celebrating the OF Mass can face the altar instead of the people?

The priest always celebrates mass facing the altar…

 

[ProVobis]

No, dancing around the church isn’t a prayerful position.

According to Cardinal Arinze, this is not entirely true in some cultures.

 

[runningdude]

There is an even greater contradiction.

If they are exempt form control, why did that exemption not extent to the broadcast of their Mass.

Religious orders are only exempt when members are participating in core ministries of the order. If the broadcast mass is not a core ministry, then it would not be exempt.

(Since television did not exist in Saint Francis’ day, I doubt he made a provision within the the order’s bylaws to accommodate televised masses as part of the Franciscan way of life.)

 

[maryjk]

According to Cardinal Arinze, this is not entirely true in some cultures.

For the posters here, that argue back and forth and then pull the “well, then we should allow dancing during the Lord’s prayer, if we are going to allow hand holding,” it isn’t part of the culture.

We have a priest that visits from the continent of Africa. He was kind of surprised that we didn’t sway to the music. It IS part of his culture to dance whenever singing.

 

[ProVobis]

For the posters here, that argue back and forth and then pull the “well, then we should allow dancing during the Lord’s prayer, if we are going to allow hand holding,” it isn’t part of the culture.

I suppose you could use that argument but hand-holding during Mass isn’t exactly a long-standing custom (which canon law protects, btw) in the U.S. either.

We have a priest that visits from the continent of Africa. He was kind of surprised that we didn’t sway to the music. It IS part of his culture to dance whenever singing.

Exactly my point.

BTW, the Hispanics clap extensively to the beat during Spanish Masses but I’m not sure if that could be termed a custom per se.

 

[Brendan]

We have a priest that visits from the continent of Africa. He was kind of surprised that we didn’t sway to the music. It IS part of his culture to dance whenever singing.

Having been to Africa several time on Mission trips ( and going again in July ), he mentions the swaying in Africa. He also mentioned that we are not even supposed to discuss it. It is a simple lean side to side as they walk.

Cardinal Arinze when he was prefect of CDWDS

youtube.com/watch?v=9rJFdmmqj_s

 

[dans0622]

…
A bishop cannot control a religious community … 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. …

Hello,

Says who? What about canon 678 ( vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P29.HTM ), which says the opposite? The Foley decree wasn’t revoked because it was directed toward the Franciscan community but because it was contrary to a higher law (cf. c. 135.2).

Dan

 

[TimothyH]

There is an even greater contradiction.

If they are exempt form control, why did that exemption not extent to the broadcast of their Mass.

There have been some here who claimed that Rome only overruled Bishop Foley in that the Mass was a liturgy conducted by the Franciscans. But that does not address Rome noting that the Diocesan Bishop had control over what liturgies were broadcast in his diocese.

Yeah, it is interesting.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Hello,

Says who? What about canon 678 ( vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P29.HTM ), which says the opposite? The Foley decree wasn’t revoked because it was directed toward the Franciscan community but because it was contrary to a higher law (cf. c. 135.2).

Dan

That is interesting. It does say that religious must submit to the bishop in matters of “the public exercise of divine worship.”

I do know however, that the bishop has no authority over religious communities with regard to their own internal worship and wonder if that is the distinction, private (within the community) and public (parish).

I don’t know what the answer is.

-Tim-

 

[otjm]

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.

No, we are not required to accept it when it is an option; the matter is quite simple - people vote with their feet. They go to a different Mass, or a different parish.

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.

Then you must be a very new Catholic, or very isolated. That is not what has happened over the last 60 years (I am older than that); well before Vatican 2 I was very aware that people who didn’t’ like a pastor or an assistant did something about it, and that was usually through avoidance.

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

People simply go around road blocks.

 

[otjm]

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?

Anyone who thinks the pastor does not have that power knows next to nothing of the dynamics of pastor/associate. He has as much power as he chooses to exercise.

You may mean to say the pastor does not have the legal authority. In the real world, legal authority may or may not be present, but power certainly is. And most pastors will have enough wits to be able to exercise that power without getting themselves keelhauled in the process.

 

[otjm]

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

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

It is the means or the vehicle by which people join in community wo worship God - so it is both.

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.

That happens all the time. Just because there are options does not mean that time and circumstances have no bearing on which options are used.

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.

No, bum on the seats does not equate to people coming to Christ; but id does start the process. A bit hard to do if the bums are not in the seats, eh?

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.

Try telling that to those who want the EF. I want to watch that one.

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.

Shall we all be snide now?

 

[otjm]

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-

Where is Bro. JR when we need him?

 

[Brendan]

Anyone who thinks the pastor does not have that power knows next to nothing of the dynamics of pastor/associate. He has as much power as he chooses to exercise. .

Actual, Church granted power, or power unjustly obtained by intimidation or threats?

Which SHOULD a pastor have?

 

[pnewton]

The whole argument is rather moot. There simply is not any reason for a priest to ask the bishop, or tell him of his plans, if he intends to change permanently. The bishop is the shepherd of the parish entrusted to the priest, after all. It would be like a babysitter not asking the parents if she could cook a meal for the kids when she had never done so before.