extent of a bishop's authority

[NewEnglandPriest]

I found this, after a few hours of searching.

adoremus.org/NewLiturgy9102K.html

Actually what’s written in that link never really addresses the issue at hand. It clearly states that a priest may celebrate Mass facing either way. However it does not say that a Bishop may not limit the legitimate options.

It’s just weird that the info is so hard to come by when so much inane stuff is easy to find.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Actually what’s written in that link never really addresses the issue at hand. It clearly states that a priest may celebrate Mass facing either way. However it does not say that a Bishop may not limit the legitimate options.

It’s just weird that the info is so hard to come by when so much inane stuff is easy to find.

I am probably stating the obvious and, no doubt, this option has been considered: doesn’t CDWDS publish it’s decisions in Notitiae?

 

[Brendan]

Actually what’s written in that link never really addresses the issue at hand. It clearly states that a priest may celebrate Mass facing either way. However it does not say that a Bishop may not limit the legitimate options.

It’s just weird that the info is so hard to come by when so much inane stuff is easy to find.

That is probably because that it is a very rare occurace. The only widely known publically instance was the EWTN\Bishop Foley instance.

And since the resolution of that was done a part of a juridical appeal, the decision of the Vatican was communicated only directly to the two parties involved.

Arroyo’s book has the resulting decision document sent to EWTN, but Bishop Foley chose not to publish the Vatican response on the diocesan website, so yes it would be a little hard to find

But either way, this does seem very conclusive

"…,this Dicastry has concluded that individual Diocesan Bishops may not prohibit celebration of the Sacred Liturgy facing the apse “ad orientum” and therefore,it must respectfully ask that Your Excellency withdraw this Decree because it is contary to the ius commune with regard to liturgical matters. "

 

[Brendan]

I am probably stating the obvious and, no doubt, this option has been considered: doesn’t CDWDS publish it’s decisions in Notitiae?

Not all, as was mentioned, this was an appeal of a juridical dispute, NOT a responsum to to dubia.

 

[Sirach2]

Brendan:

Arroyo’s book has the resulting decision document sent to EWTN, but Bishop Foley chose not to publish the Vatican response on the diocesan website, so yes it would be a little hard to find

But either way, this does seem very conclusive

"…,this Dicastry has concluded that individual Diocesan Bishops may not prohibit celebration of the Sacred Liturgy facing the apse “ad orientum” and therefore,it must respectfully ask that Your Excellency withdraw this Decree because it is contary to the ius commune with regard to liturgical matters. "

Respectfully, I note that Arroyo has a loving bias toward all things “Mother Angelica,” so we have to listen to his words with reservations, realizing that he would be selective in printing the entire context.

In quoting the Protocol from CDWDS, Brendan omitted the critical portion of the response after the word “negative.” However, the next paragraph (and beyond) is critical to understanding the mind of the Church.

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account.

It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar *a pariete sejunctum *[detached from the wall] and to the celebration versus populum [toward the people]. The clause ubi possibile sit [where it is possible] refers to different elements, as, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc. It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier (Cf. the editorial in *Notitiae *29 [1993] 245-249), without excluding, however, the other possibility.

One of the essential considerations that “must be taken into account” is from this paragraph in the Notitiae.

1. The option for celebrations is coherent with the foundational theological idea discovered and proven by the liturgical movement: “Liturgical actions are celebrations of the Church. . .which is the holy people of God gathered and ordered under the bishops” (SC 26). The theology of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, “distinct in essence, and not in degree” (<essentia, non gradu>) and nevertheless ordered to each other (LG 10) is certainly better expressed with the arrangement of the <altar versus populum

.

 

[Sirach2]

Angel Gabriel:

Originally Posted by Sirach2

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The pastor has to consider the common good of all, rather than the request of a few.
I agree with that but if he is willing to add a Mass say every other week or something like that for those parishioners then I don’t think there’s any harm in it. And other people might start to attend and come to like it as much as the typical OF that they go to.

Dear Angel,

It may help you to read the notitiae I just posted. Two points bring out the reason why, although ad orientum is certainly permitted, I believe the Church would prefer facing the people. This can be read toward the end of the document.

1. It is proper to explain clearly that the expression “celebrate facing the people” does not have a theological sense, but only a topographical- positional sense. Every celebration of the Eucharist is praise and glory of God, for our good and the good of all the Church …]

Theologically, therefore, the Mass is always facing towards God and facing the people. In the form of celebration it is necessary to take care not to switch theology and topography around, above all when the priest is at the altar. The priest speaks to the people only in the dialogue from the altar. All the rest is prayer to the Father, through the mediation of Christ in the Holy Spirit. **This theology must be visible. **

1. At last, a conjectural consideration that is not to be left in silence. Thirty years have passed since the constitution . “Provisional arrangements” cannot be justified any longer. In the re-organization of the sanctuary, **if a provisional character is maintained which is either pedagogically or artistically badly resolved, then an element of distortion results for catechesis and for the very theology of the celebration. **Some criticisms of certain celebrations that are raised are well-founded and can only be taken with seriousness. The effort to improve celebrations is one of the basic elements to assure, in so far as it depends on us, an active and fruitful participation.

I hope this resolves your question a bit better. Active and fruitful participation is the focus of V-II. This is not the focus in the EF, so if you are hoping to bring some of these elements into the OF via ad orientem, it would disrupt the theology. Make sense?

 

[FrancisB]

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

Any more than the plural of “straw” is not “haystack”, and yet when one acquires enough straws of hay…

 

[GwenL]

Any more than the plural of “straw” is not “haystack”, and yet when one acquires enough straws of hay…

Well, the estimated 9,459,843 straws of hay required to build a haystack would equate to an equal number of anecdotes, no?

The point is, that someone’s personal experience (colored by personal perceptions) of two or three parishes, or even 100 parishes, tells us absolutely nothing about the state of the Church.

 

[FrancisB]

Well, the estimated 9,459,843 straws of hay required to build a haystack would equate to an equal number of anecdotes, no?

The point is, that someone’s personal experience (colored by personal perceptions) of two or three parishes, or even 100 parishes, tells us absolutely nothing about the state of the Church.

Yes, I understand that point, but my point is that in the world of the social sciences anecdotal evidence is often used alongside statistics to suggest the facts of a situation. Statistics can be manipulated, and numbers cannot tell us much about the state of the church. Only a plethora of anecdotes can effectively inform us. If such were not the case, than “case studies” (which are little more than glorified anecdotes) would not be so important to the justification of important new ideas in the social sciences.

Certainly polling every EF mass in the world for age and finding the average and median ages of the participants might give us some information, but remember that these numbers will shift greatly each time an older person dies or a young couple has a new child. Then there is the question of whether average or median is more representative of the trend. Statistics are too easily manipulated. Do you want to make everyone look older? Only include the adults in the study. Make them look younger? Include the non-Catholic children that are there without their families not because they are true believers, but because the church is warm and there is free food after mass. Or maybe that’s too anecdotal a suggestion. Our EF is in a rough neighbourhood and there are quite a few such children. I can only pray that even if it is warmth and food that brings them in, they find the faith and stay.

Even looking at the authoritative documents cannot give us facts, only truth. They prescribe the situation as it should be, but they do not give a clear and exhaustive factual demonstration of the situation as it is. This is the inherent problem with these discussions, though…

 

[Sirach2]

All that black ink to challenge Gwen’s simple comment?

Not to mention going well off topic . . .