Cardinal Sarah praises ad orientem worship, suggests appendix to Roman Missal [CWN]

[Brendan_64]

A diocesan priest needs permission to celebrate the Mass Ad Orientem from the Bishop of that dioceses. They usually get it, but few request it in the first place.

Where do you get that from? As far as I was aware, priests are entirely free to celebrate Mass Ad Orientem without having to get permission from their bishop.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Where do you get that from? As far as I was aware, priests are entirely free to celebrate Mass Ad Orientem without having to get permission from their bishop.

Do you remember the controversy between Mother Angelica and Bishop Foley ?

Jim

 

[Brendan_64]

Do you remember the controversy between Mother Angelica and Bishop Foley ?

Jim

No, I don’t. Tell me about it.

 

[Sirach2]

No, I don’t. Tell me about it.

Mother A. wanted to celebrate the daily televised Mass using A.O.rather than V.P. Bishop Foley forbade it. It may have been due televised broadcasts that the Bishop felt would give a wrongful message to the public who viewed it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No, I don’t. Tell me about it.

From what I remember, don’t get on my case if I have a detail wrong.

When they were planning to have the Bishop Foley bless the new church at the new monastery, he said the Mass had to be celebrated Versus populum, i.e. facing the people. Mother Angelica refused and in fact, started having the televised Masses at the chapel said, Ad Orientem.

The Bishop told Mother Angelica that all Masses had to be Versus populum.

It got heated enough that the Vatican was contacted.

In short, they both won in a sense.

The Masses at the Monastery, could be said Ad Orentem, because it was the religious order running the monastery.

However, the televised Masses had to be Versus Populum per the Bishop, because it was being broadcast to the public and the norm in the US is Versus Populum.

Ironically, Bishop Foley’s program on EWTN was cancelled, but I’m not sure if the controversy over this issue was the reason, but it was cancelled in the same time frame.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

I
If the norm is to say the entire Mass facing the people, then why would GIRM need to specifically state that at several point during the Mass that the priest should specifically fact the people?

Good point.

 

[ProVobis]

At any rate, what the Church has decided is what stands, the priest faces the people, in most cases.

Yes, but wouldn’t this constitute a “rupture,” the very thing Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI warned against? How is facing the people display any kind of continuity within the church, except in cases Brendan64 showed (“Dominus vobiscum,” etc)?

Just sayin…

 

[Sirach2]

However, the televised Masses had to be Versus Populum per the Bishop, because it was being broadcast to the public and the norm in the US is Versus Populum.

Jim, I found this instruction, which confirms the bishop’s authority in his own diocese. It is dated perhaps after the incident with Mother Angelica, but the principle is underlying in other documents, even though she began broadcasting prior to 1996.

From the USCCB website:

1. Responsibility of the Diocesan Bishop
The bishop of a diocese in which a televised Mass is produced has the responsibility to see that liturgical law is carefully observed, especially regarding the liturgical feasts and seasons, the use of approved liturgical texts and translations of Scripture, proper vesture, and ministers fulfilling their proper roles in the liturgy. Since these telecasts often cross diocesan lines, collegial responsibility should be exercised by the bishops involved (SC, #22 and Inter Mirifica, #20).

Conclusion
Much more could be said and greater specificity could be given in these guidelines. The guidelines are intentionally limited, however, to allow as much latitude as possible for the local bishop in overseeing the telecasting of the liturgy. These guidelines are provided for bishops to use as the basis for their important work of overseeing the celebration of the liturgy in their dioceses.
Nov. 1996, updated for Third Roman Missal in Jan. 2014

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, I found this instruction, which confirms the bishop’s authority in his own diocese. It is dated perhaps after the incident with Mother Angelica, but the principle is underlying in other documents, even though she began broadcasting prior to 1996.

From the USCCB website:

1. Responsibility of the Diocesan Bishop
The bishop of a diocese in which a televised Mass is produced has the responsibility to see that liturgical law is carefully observed, especially regarding the liturgical feasts and seasons, the use of approved liturgical texts and translations of Scripture, proper vesture, and ministers fulfilling their proper roles in the liturgy. Since these telecasts often cross diocesan lines, collegial responsibility should be exercised by the bishops involved (SC, #22 and Inter Mirifica, #20).

Conclusion
Much more could be said and greater specificity could be given in these guidelines. The guidelines are intentionally limited, however, to allow as much latitude as possible for the local bishop in overseeing the telecasting of the liturgy. These guidelines are provided for bishops to use as the basis for their important work of overseeing the celebration of the liturgy in their dioceses.
Nov. 1996, updated for Third Roman Missal in Jan. 2014

Thanks Sirach !

And the Mass at the Monastery, because it was not televised and was within the religious order, could follow their own norm on this issue and perhaps some others.

Jim

 

[dans0622]

Where do you get that from? As far as I was aware, priests are entirely free to celebrate Mass Ad Orientem without having to get permission from their bishop.

Hello,

From a strictly legal perspective, I agree with you. No permission is needed. From a practical perspective, a priest would be wise to discuss the matter with the bishop and make sure both parties are “on the same page.”

Dan

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hello,

From a strictly legal perspective, I agree with you. No permission is needed. From a practical perspective, a priest would be wise to discuss the matter with the bishop and make sure both parties are “on the same page.”

Dan

Wrong.

A diocesan priest needs permission from his Bishop to say Mass other than what the norm is for that dioceses.

A priest can’t redesign the parish church so that the altar is now against the back wall as in the past, without the Bishop’s approval.

Failure to do so would get the priest assigned outside of a parish.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

A priest can’t redesign the parish church so that the altar is now against the back wall as in the past, without the Bishop’s approval.

I think the tendency now is to have the altar moved toward the center of the Church, with the congregation sitting in front of, to the side of, and in back of the priest. The IGMR/GIRM was directed towards placement of the altar more than the actual orientation of the priest saying the Mass. Even the EF is said in many places on a free-standing altar.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think the tendency now is to have the altar moved toward the center of the Church, with the congregation sitting in front of, to the side of, and in back of the priest. The IGMR/GIRM was directed towards placement of the altar more than the actual orientation of the priest saying the Mass. Even the EF is said in many places on a free-standing altar.

But how the church is constructed and where the altar is placed has to be approved by the local Bishop.

Even the stations of the cross require his approval, as I learned when our little church was remodeled.

Jim

 

[twf]

But how the church is constructed and where the altar is placed has to be approved by the local Bishop.

Even the stations of the cross require his approval, as I learned when our little church was remodeled.

Jim

Could the bishop forbid Ad Orientem in the OF? Perhaps. But I do not see how permission must be asked as both orientations are allowed under Church law. The position of the altar is another question. Ad Orientem is still possible with many free standing altars. Furthermore, as per Pope Benedict’s legislation, all Latin priests have the right to say the EF mass without any special permission from their bishop. The EF mass MUST be said ad Orientem.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Could the bishop forbid Ad Orientem in the OF? Perhaps. But I do not see how permission must be asked as both orientations are allowed under Church law. The position of the altar is another question. Ad Orientem is still possible with many free standing altars. Furthermore, as per Pope Benedict’s legislation, all Latin priests have the right to say the EF mass without any special permission from their bishop. The EF mass MUST be said ad Orientem.

You’re misinformed.

A congregation has the right to request a EF Mass, a priest doesn’t have the right to insist on it.

A Bishop decides on the priests who serve in his dioceses and a priest who insists on what the Bishop disagrees with, will bot be a a priest in his dioceses.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

A congregation has the right to request a EF Mass, a priest doesn’t have the right to insist on it.

Have you read Summorum Pontificum and its instructions?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Have you read Summorum Pontificum and its instructions?

Yup and I stand by what I posted.

A congregation can request the EF, a priest on his own can not insist on it without a congregation requesting it.

That being said, when a congregation request the EF, the Bishop has to find a priest who is qualified to celebrate that format.

If none are available, the congregation has to go without.

Jim

 

[R_H_Benson]

Yup and I stand by what I posted.

A congregation can request the EF, a priest on his own can not insist on it without a congregation requesting it.

Jim

Wrong.

Priests have the freedom to offer the Traditional Latin Mass whenever they please, as long as they also offer the Mass of Paul VI according the the pastoral needs of the congregation.

 

[twf]

You’re misinformed.

A congregation has the right to request a EF Mass, a priest doesn’t have the right to insist on it.

A Bishop decides on the priests who serve in his dioceses and a priest who insists on what the Bishop disagrees with, will bot be a a priest in his dioceses.

Jim

I didn’t say anything about imposing or insisting or defying the bishop’s wishes. You stated that permission would be required for ad Orientem. I simply said that the law allows it (and tradition encourages it)- there is no legal permission required. Subjective elements such as the opinion of the local bishop on the matter are another issue. Likewise with the EF- sure if can’t be imposed but permission is not required. IF a stable community exists a priest may offer it without asking permission from the bishop. Also, any priest can celebrate a private mass any time (even a private mass open to visitors) - OF / ad Orientem or EF.

 

[Sirach2]

Likewise with the EF- sure if can’t be imposed but permission is not required. IF a stable community exists a priest may offer it without asking permission from the bishop. Also, any priest can celebrate a private mass any time (even a private mass open to visitors

It does not serve any good purpose to debate this and win one’s point about saying the EF, since there is rarely a stable community in any large parish that desires it. Due to the shortage of priests, many parishes have been closed and united into one large parish serving several communities. Priests are often assigned to administer, not only their own parish, but others in the vicinity.

Given the restriction that priests may celebrate one mass daily, except for another funeral mass, and three on Sunday, no priest has the luxury of praying an additional private mass on their own initiative. They must also announce the intention of celebrating the EF mass in the bulletin ahead of time, and cannot suddenly impose an it upon the congregation out of a personal impromptu desire to do so. The parish must be served first and foremost with the OF.

We just received notice this week in my diocese of the priests’ assignments. You will quickly note the many priests who are assigned to additional parishes. We really need to pray for our priests! Seriously, while folks may win the argument on the “lawfulness” of celebrating the EF, it is virtually nil in practical reality.

The Reverend James W. Clark, Parish Priest in Residence at Saints Cyril and Methodius Parish, Fairchance, with parochial responsibilities at the partner parishes of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Fairchance, and Saint Hubert Parish, Point Marion, as well as at Saint Therese, Little Flower of Jesus and Saint Joseph Parish, Uniontown, under the supervision of Monsignor Michael W. Matusak, VF, while remaining as Chaplain at Uniontown Hospital