E
Elizium23
Guest
It is more akin to the babysitter, accustomed to cooking meals for the children, deciding to serve them with a spoon instead of a fork, without asking the parents.
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Except in the case here, the bishop is not the final authority, the parent. The Holy See would be the parent, and the parent has already given permission to use a fork or a spoon.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
No, its the bishop. The Church does not work as an monarchy. Without a specific ruling on a specific case, the bishop is in charge of the diocese. The Holy See in this case is more like the government setting limits and guidelines. From the Code of Canon Law:
Unless there is a specific direction from the Holy See granting a priest a certain right or privilege that is absolute, the bishop is the boss. The above case regarding religious priests in a diocese came about because of a disagreement and the Holy See rendered a judgment that then became applicable there. It could be argued well, that this would apply to all diocesan bishops and their interaction with religious priest. However, their own presbyters operate under a very different authority. Their authority is directly from their bishop.
Trying to jump to the Holy See over one’s bishop over something like this would be a very foolish, and I think futile, move.
If I were a priest, and wanted to do something like this, I think I would start with a smaller request, like facing East during Advent, to show the anticipation of the coming of the Lord, and teach the parish about liturgical East. I think this could be pitched easier to a bishop (and the parish).
P
pnewton
Guest
If this is truly how minute a difference it is, then why change or make an issue out of it? Or to put it another way, since this** is **an issue, it is not as mundane as you suggest.
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually, no, The authority of the Holy See is the final authortty.
As has been mentioned in prior posts, the authority of the bishop in the matter of an ad orientum liturgy WAS overturned by Rome in the case of the Franciscans of the Enternal Word
Thus the authority of Bishop Foley in that matter could hardly be called the final one, could it?
In the case of the Canon you mentioned, the authority to develop and promote the normative postures were entrusted to the CDWDS. Therefore the very exception that you hightlighted applies
Other examples are where bishops attempted to force people to stand, either for Holy Communion or after they returned to their pews after receiving Communion. Or to attempts to forbid the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue during flu season.
All of those were overturned by the CDWDS, so no, the bishop was NOT the final authority.
Since the CDWDS is the legislator of the GIRM, it retains the right, under Canon Law to be the authentic interpreter, and it’s interpretations have the force of law
C
clem456
Guest
Just so I understand you fully, the foundational question in your conception of obedience is “Is what I do legal or not”?
Is that correct?
B
Brendan
Guest
No, I would state that the Virtue of Obedience is best stated by Aquinas: It is the Virtue by which we conform our wills to the will of the one who has the authority.
If the person who has the authority in a matter, it is a practice of Virtue for all in service to that authority to conform their wills in that matter to the will of the one with authority
If person does not have authority in the matter, then there is no Virtue in the conformation of one’s will.
If a person does NOT have authority and attempts to contradict those who do have the authority, then the conformation of one’s will to the will of the first person is not Virtue, but Vice.
Now the question for you becomes, do you desire that our priests, bishops and laity practice Virtue?
C
clem456
Guest
E
Elizium23
Guest
The bishop has certain authority in liturgical matters which are ceded to him by the universal documents. Ad orientem posture is not something that is cited as regulated by the ordinary, so he has no special authority in this matter. The authority to regulate this posture comes from Rome. It is granted universally. The bishop may have certain weapons in his arsenal to prohibit or make life hard for priests who wish to use it, but he is not the final liturgical authority when that right has not been granted to him by Rome.
Anyway, I think we have overlooked a force to be reckoned with in any pastor’s life, a force which in many ways outranks the bishop, and that would be the parishioners. Changes like ad orientem are the kind of things which are so trivial and matter little to anyone except those who detest any such form of change. The parishioners are the ones who will make life hard for the priest. The parishioners are the ones who will take their toys (donations) and go home (to another parish). The parishioners are the ones who will form lynch mobs and write to the bishop, to the nuncio, and to Rome if they don’t get their way, and so you see, even if you have the bishop’s permission, even if the bishop gives permission, or even if the bishop has no authority in this matter, the bishop is of little consequence once the parishioners get involved. They will have the final say and they will be the reason the priest is eventually transferred to Siberia.
Anyway, I think we have overlooked a force to be reckoned with in any pastor’s life, a force which in many ways outranks the bishop, and that would be the parishioners. Changes like ad orientem are the kind of things which are so trivial and matter little to anyone except those who detest any such form of change. The parishioners are the ones who will make life hard for the priest. The parishioners are the ones who will take their toys (donations) and go home (to another parish). The parishioners are the ones who will form lynch mobs and write to the bishop, to the nuncio, and to Rome if they don’t get their way, and so you see, even if you have the bishop’s permission, even if the bishop gives permission, or even if the bishop has no authority in this matter, the bishop is of little consequence once the parishioners get involved. They will have the final say and they will be the reason the priest is eventually transferred to Siberia.
B
Brendan
Guest
Obedience is due to the authority. Authority is an aspect, not a person.
A person might HAVE authority, and may EXCERCISE authority, but I would disagree that authority is a person, at lease in the human realm.
God IS Authority in the same way that God IS Love or that God IS Justice.
The personhood of the one who holds authority enters in that it is to their will that we conform our own.
For example, if the priest has the authority to celebrate the Mass ad orientum, the Virtue of Obedience would be for the faithful to conform their wills to that. The will to whom the faithful would conform their wills to ( if they desire to practice Virtue) would be to the will of God granted through Rome.
The authority (like all authority) comes from God. It is granted to the priest by delegation the Holy See and then to the CDWDS. The actor of the authority is the priest and the subject of the authority are the faithful.
But it is the authority itself that is the hallmark of Obedience.
C
clem456
Guest
Authority is vested in a human person. Human beings lay hands on one another to pass that authority on. Ultimately that authority comes from Jesus Christ. Do you agree that Christ is a person, and that Church authorities are persons?
Why is this important? You are asserting that the test of an individual’s obedience in the Church (priest or lay faithful) rests solely on his adherence to the letter of a law of his choosing, placing the exercise of his rights above all other considerations.
Here is an analogy that I suspect you will find lacking. Husbands and wives owe loving obedience to one another in their marriage covenant. If I am watching Dancing With the Stars while my wife expects me to be helping my children with math homework, am I legally bound to do as she wills? No. I am perfectly within my rights to sit and watch tv, or go mow the grass. Maybe I think there is something more important to do. This is a very minimalist and selfish conception of obedience. This kind of living would surely disrupt the peace and cause harm.
Out of respect for who my wife is in God’s eyes, her vocation, and the nature of the sacrament of matrimony, I owe her some loving obedience above and beyond my legal rights. I do not obey her because we have a legal contract, although that is some incentive.
I’m not anywhere near an expert in law so I will post this as food for thought.
But in our hypothetical the faithful did not like it and his bishop objects. Everybody has rights, not just the priest. You assert his right to do what he is legally allowed trumps the common good and obedience to his bishop.
M
malphono
Guest
I’ve been quietly following the twists-and-turns of this thread, and (as is more usual than not) I agree with your conclusions.
Not directed to you personally, Brendan, but I think you’ll understand what I mean in the following. While I have absolutely no interest or desire to become embroiled in it, I can’t help but wonder: would this thread have been as long and repetitious as it’s been if the question were reversed?
B
Brendan
Guest
I do agree, but that is not what you had stated. Obedience is owned to the authority, and that authority is vested in certain humans.
The question then becomes, in whom is this particular authority vested?
Where exactly did I state that? What I would claim is that if a bishop or a pastor attempted to make ‘life miserable’ for a priest who excercised the authority invested in him by Rome, would do so unjustly and in violation of their own obligation for obedience.
Likewise for the faithful.
Like all authority, it must trace it’s roots to God. Who exactly granted you the ‘right’ to watch TV when your wife is in need. Where did you get authority to do so? From God?
See St. John Chrysostom Homily XX on Ephesians.
By the same token the celebrant IS given an authority to exercise certain options within the liturgy, and CAN legitimately point to God as it’s source. Would the same be true in your analogy?
In the case of the faithful, we are now going back to the practice of Virtue, If they are not conforming their wills in recognition of the legitimate authority that was granted to this priest, is that the fault of the priest? Do we not desire that the faithful practice virtue? If they fail to do so, where lies the fault?
In regards to his promise of obedience to the bishop, in what way is his obedience being violated?
O
otjm
Guest
I have read through the GIRM several times, but I know enough to know that I know very little. So I don’t know if it is correct that any given priest has the authority, on his own whim, to simply decide in the parish he resides in, to say Mass ad orientem.
But we seem to be stuck on authority, and there appears to be a construct of a pyramid of authority from the Pope, to the dicastery, to the conference of bishops, to the bishop, to the priest, with the laity assigned to suck it up and “the faithful would conform their wills to ( if they desire to practice Virtue) would be to the will of God granted through Rome.”.
But let’s step back a minute; last I recall, one of the titles of the Pope is Servant of Servants. Which would lead one to consider that those ordained under him are also servants.
There has been much discussion elsewhere (and by that, I don’t mean in these forae - I mean among liturgists) as to the issue of ad orientem. But the fact of the matter is that while Rome may grant options, and the OP may be of the opinion (along with others) that the laity have no clue about liturgy, being sheep like and all that, that the shepherd (here, the parish priest) is going to show them what it is all about.
I would submit that unless and until Rome decides that ad orientem will be the rule and not the option of the exception, that the priest’s primary duty is to the salvation of the souls under his care, and that does not, in most instances, mean that he has carte blanche to use whatever option he feels most suits what he thinks they need as a spiritual direction.
I have been going to Mass ever since the OF was promulgated, to ad orientem Masses (with the exception of those at my local Trappist abbey - where the monks are in choir on one side of the altar, and the celebrant faces those laity who are on the other side. So about once a month I attend an EF that is a mixture of ad populum and ad orientem; but for the laity, ad populum as is just about every other Mass in the archdiocese.
For a period of time I attended a parish well out of the metropolitan area. In Oregon, we stand during the Domine Non Sum Dignus through the reception of Communion; but the pastor there seemed to think he had a different option (actually, several) and he had split that parish quite badly; people were driving 30 to 45 minutes to another parish 15 to 30 miles away.
It did some really serious economic damage to the parish, not to mention the social and spiritual impact it had on the parishioners who left, and those who remained behind.
The priest was moved. Last I heard, there still had not been anywhere near a complete healing the rift caused.
The point I am trying to make is that the priest is there to serve; and there are times he needs to change the directions of the parish; and there are times that wisdom would indicate that he should not. It is all well and good to claim “this is better liturgy” and “the laity need to conform their wills to God and Rome”. But what I am getting here is that there is a presumption the priest knows better than everyone else (which includes the bishop) because he a) has an option (which has now been elevated up to a right) and b) he knows better than the laity what their spiritual needs are.
It may well be that the priest has the option ad orientem and his bishop cannot say otherwise (my guess is that is not so, but it is only a guess based on 40 years of observation - or thereabouts), but that is more about liturgical law and Canon law than anyone here has shown an expertise about. In other words, the legal ramifications seem to be outside any expertise so far exhibited on either side.
But even presuming that the legal issue is that no one can tell the priest whether to use this option or not use it, only the unwisest and least experienced would say "Go for it Bro! (or Padre! if you will). And I say that having seen more than one parish torn asunder by a clericalist; the above example is only one of several I have witnessed.
Seminary may teach any number of things, and that is knowledge. Ordination, however, does not automatically grant wisdom, and wisdom and knowledge are most definitely not the same thing.
But we seem to be stuck on authority, and there appears to be a construct of a pyramid of authority from the Pope, to the dicastery, to the conference of bishops, to the bishop, to the priest, with the laity assigned to suck it up and “the faithful would conform their wills to ( if they desire to practice Virtue) would be to the will of God granted through Rome.”.
But let’s step back a minute; last I recall, one of the titles of the Pope is Servant of Servants. Which would lead one to consider that those ordained under him are also servants.
There has been much discussion elsewhere (and by that, I don’t mean in these forae - I mean among liturgists) as to the issue of ad orientem. But the fact of the matter is that while Rome may grant options, and the OP may be of the opinion (along with others) that the laity have no clue about liturgy, being sheep like and all that, that the shepherd (here, the parish priest) is going to show them what it is all about.
I would submit that unless and until Rome decides that ad orientem will be the rule and not the option of the exception, that the priest’s primary duty is to the salvation of the souls under his care, and that does not, in most instances, mean that he has carte blanche to use whatever option he feels most suits what he thinks they need as a spiritual direction.
I have been going to Mass ever since the OF was promulgated, to ad orientem Masses (with the exception of those at my local Trappist abbey - where the monks are in choir on one side of the altar, and the celebrant faces those laity who are on the other side. So about once a month I attend an EF that is a mixture of ad populum and ad orientem; but for the laity, ad populum as is just about every other Mass in the archdiocese.
For a period of time I attended a parish well out of the metropolitan area. In Oregon, we stand during the Domine Non Sum Dignus through the reception of Communion; but the pastor there seemed to think he had a different option (actually, several) and he had split that parish quite badly; people were driving 30 to 45 minutes to another parish 15 to 30 miles away.
It did some really serious economic damage to the parish, not to mention the social and spiritual impact it had on the parishioners who left, and those who remained behind.
The priest was moved. Last I heard, there still had not been anywhere near a complete healing the rift caused.
The point I am trying to make is that the priest is there to serve; and there are times he needs to change the directions of the parish; and there are times that wisdom would indicate that he should not. It is all well and good to claim “this is better liturgy” and “the laity need to conform their wills to God and Rome”. But what I am getting here is that there is a presumption the priest knows better than everyone else (which includes the bishop) because he a) has an option (which has now been elevated up to a right) and b) he knows better than the laity what their spiritual needs are.
It may well be that the priest has the option ad orientem and his bishop cannot say otherwise (my guess is that is not so, but it is only a guess based on 40 years of observation - or thereabouts), but that is more about liturgical law and Canon law than anyone here has shown an expertise about. In other words, the legal ramifications seem to be outside any expertise so far exhibited on either side.
But even presuming that the legal issue is that no one can tell the priest whether to use this option or not use it, only the unwisest and least experienced would say "Go for it Bro! (or Padre! if you will). And I say that having seen more than one parish torn asunder by a clericalist; the above example is only one of several I have witnessed.
Seminary may teach any number of things, and that is knowledge. Ordination, however, does not automatically grant wisdom, and wisdom and knowledge are most definitely not the same thing.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Yes, everybody does have rights. However the rights that someone has are not determined by whether or not others like or object to what they are doing. People are not entitled to determine the legally established right of another simply because they they don’t like, or because they object to one person exercising what is their right.
The laity might prefer a priest not to say a Mass ad orientum, but they do not have any right to have the Mass said to them in the way that they prefer. The bishop may object to a priest saying a Mass ad orientum, but enforcing his objection is not a right. Rights and preferences are very different things.
Just because a majority of the congregation want something, that doesn’t mean that what they what equates to the ‘common good’. Nor does it mean that they are entitled to get what they want, simply because that is what most (or even all) of them want. The Church (at a local level, or at any other level) is not, nor should it be, a democracy. A priest is not beholding to the wishes and desires of the congregation.
And the priest is only bound to obey the bishop on matters relating to the authority of his bishop. The bishop does not have the authority to stop a priest from exercising something that Church law determines that the priest has a right to do. For example, does a bishop have a right to prevent a priest from saying an EF Mass, even though Summorum Pontificum grants the individual priest this right? No he doesn’t, because the priest has been granted this right under Church law. The same applies to other things that the priest has a legal right to do.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yet, it seems easier for the priest just to say the EF than to have to go through channels to be able to say the Mass regularly ad orientem, in Latin, employ Gregorian chant, etc. There’s a lot of psychology involved and I’m sure the Vatican looked into it carefully before issuing Quattuor Abhinc Annos, Ecclesia Dei, Summorum Pontificum, Universae Ecclesiae, etc.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is not a question of final authority as the Holy See has not intervened. The only relevant authority at this time is immediate authority.
If the Holy See addresses this, then it that would be an exercise of final papal authority. Until this happens, it is still a “what if”. I used to have a different understanding of this, but Brother JR has educated me quite a bit in the legal aspect of authority and obedience.
Another way of looking at this is to picture a parish with two priest, one the vicar and the other the younger priest that just came in. Would the younger priest have the authority to defy the older priest in this matter? What about the time Mass starts? What about the language of the Mass, Spanish, English, Latin? No, this particular item has not been relegated specifically to the bishop, but neither is in mentioned as a specific right to the priest. Until it is, or in absence of that, the first canon mentioned applies.
I really think the legal issue is moot. If the practicle issues are not sufficient reason to think this matter through and act in unity with his bishop and for the good of his people, the priest needs to re-think his motivation for his calling. It does little good to face the altar to the East toward the coming Lord if we are giving the rasberry to our bishop and parishoners behind us.
C
clem456
Guest
Legality is not the point.
An individual’s right to do a particular action does not trump all other considerations, and in the Catholic Church a person’s rights to particular liturgical actions do not trump obedience to authority, which is the bishop here, who is a person, not a rulebook in Rome. The bishop may know the priest is allowed to do this and in his prudential judgment he prefers he doesn’t, or he may be simply against this particular rule. And so? The priest and the faithful owe him obedience in anything but sin. This is why I am trying to emphasize to you that obedience is not owed merely to dead letters. Authority is vested in people. In the catechism it speaks of the living authority of the Church.
If we all act on our rights in Church disciplines and liturgy according to the letter of the law without listening to (obeying) superiors, then we have chaos, wrangling, dissension, individualism. Don’t we already have enough individualism in the Church? Seems it’s a ommon complaint on this forum. I guess it’s ok if it’s my rights I’m, asserting?
I see you did not address this passage from the canon law. Curious what your take is on this. Or possibly someone someone out there who is knowledgeable in canon law could talk about this. Seems pretty straightforward. Do you believe this supports what I and a couple other posters are saying, or not? How do you fit the willful exercise of rights into this?
By the way, this passage is addressed to all the Faithful, not just lay faithful. The section following it in the code addresses specifically lay faithful.
B
Brendan
Guest
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
- Status