extent of a bishop's authority

[Angel_Gabriel]

Is it true that a bishop can forbid a priest from celebrating the Mass ad orientum? I ask b/c in my mom’s diocese the church in her city was doing that but then the bishop told the priest that he couldn’t anymore. I’m very curious about this!

 

[fred_conty]

The priest is an extension of the bishop. Therefore the bishop may withdrawn his authority
for the priest to offer Mass, and the priest in obedience to the bishop should not offer Mass.

But suppose the priest would disobey and offer Mass, it would be a real authentic Mass, but it would carry with it a serious sin to do so. So noone should attend such a Mass.

 

[JM3]

Is it true that a bishop can forbid a priest from celebrating the Mass ad orientum? I ask b/c in my mom’s diocese the church in her city was doing that but then the bishop told the priest that he couldn’t anymore. I’m very curious about this!

Yes.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

1. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

1. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops [33]

1. The bishop is to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent.

Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers [35].

1. But because it is impossible for the bishop always and everywhere to preside over the whole flock in his Church, he cannot do other than establish lesser groupings of the faithful. Among these the parishes, set up locally under a pastor who takes the place of the bishop, are the most important: for in some manner they represent the visible Church constituted throughout the world.

And therefore the liturgical life of the parish and its relationship to the bishop must be fostered theoretically and practically among the faithful and clergy; efforts also must be made to encourage a sense of community within the parish, above all in the common celebration of the Sunday Mass.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is it true that a bishop can forbid a priest from celebrating the Mass ad orientum? I ask b/c in my mom’s diocese the church in her city was doing that but then the bishop told the priest that he couldn’t anymore. I’m very curious about this!

Yes, the bishop regulates the Liturgy in his diocese. He can authorize when and how Liturgy is celebrated.

 

[jimrob]

How the Church operates within his diocese is the Bishop’s responsibility. Catholic Bishops generally agree on matters on a provincial basis through the Bishops’ Conference and these base their decisions upon guidelines provided by Rome.

Following the Second Vatican Council, the Tridentine Rite was phased out for public Masses. It was still allowed in private. Where the furniture so allowed, the new rite required the priest to face the congregation. Most Bishops’ Conferences agreed that churches in their areas should be rearranged to facilitate Mass being said with the priest behind the altar facing the congregation. Some Bishops continued to allow Tridentine Mass with the priest ad orientem, but it was rare. That allowed various groups, notably SSPX to break away from the authority of local Bishops and defy the authority of the Second Vatican Council.

In an attempt to reconcile the Catholic Church and the various breakaway groups, our present Pope has rehabilitated the Tridentine Mass as the Extraordinary Rite effectively giving carte blanche for priests of an archaic disposition to stand between the Eucharist and the congregation. It is therefore no longer appropriate for Bishops to forbid this practice.

 

[YoungTradCath]

How the Church operates within his diocese is the Bishop’s responsibility. Catholic Bishops generally agree on matters on a provincial basis through the Bishops’ Conference and these base their decisions upon guidelines provided by Rome.

Following the Second Vatican Council, the Tridentine Rite was phased out for public Masses. It was still allowed in private. Where the furniture so allowed, the new rite required the priest to face the congregation. Most Bishops’ Conferences agreed that churches in their areas should be rearranged to facilitate Mass being said with the priest behind the altar facing the congregation. Some Bishops continued to allow Tridentine Mass with the priest ad orientem, but it was rare. That allowed various groups, notably SSPX to break away from the authority of local Bishops and defy the authority of the Second Vatican Council.

In an attempt to reconcile the Catholic Church and the various breakaway groups, our present Pope has rehabilitated the Tridentine Mass as the Extraordinary Rite effectively giving carte blanche for priests of an archaic disposition to stand between the Eucharist and the congregation. It is therefore no longer appropriate for Bishops to forbid this practice.

 

[Petergee]

How the Church operates within his diocese is the Bishop’s responsibility. Catholic Bishops generally agree on matters on a provincial basis through the Bishops’ Conference and these base their decisions upon guidelines provided by Rome.

Following the Second Vatican Council, the Tridentine Rite was phased out for public Masses. It was still allowed in private. Where the furniture so allowed, the new rite required the priest to face the congregation. Most Bishops’ Conferences agreed that churches in their areas should be rearranged to facilitate Mass being said with the priest behind the altar facing the congregation. Some Bishops continued to allow Tridentine Mass with the priest ad orientem, but it was rare. That allowed various groups, notably SSPX to break away from the authority of local Bishops and defy the authority of the Second Vatican Council.

In an attempt to reconcile the Catholic Church and the various breakaway groups, our present Pope has rehabilitated the Tridentine Mass as the Extraordinary Rite effectively giving carte blanche for priests of an archaic disposition to stand between the Eucharist and the congregation. It is therefore no longer appropriate for Bishops to forbid this practice.

The OP’s question concerned the celebration of the **Ordinary Form **ad orientem. It had nothing to do with the issue of when and whether the Tridentine (Extraordinary Form) is allowed.

There is nothing in the rubrics of the ordinary Form which requires the priest to face the congregation. In fact they seem to imply that he does not face the congregation for most of the Liturgy of the eucharist, because they say at certain parts “the celebrant turns to the people and says…” implying that he is otherwise not facing the people but is celebrating ad orientem.

 

[James_Miller]

Your question refers to the Latin rite I assume. Someone should check I am not sure that Benedict XVI has not modified this.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

thank you everyone your answers cleared up my confusion on the matter! (for my two cents I prefer the priest facing ad orientum especially the more I attend Divine Liturgy and Masses which are like this)

 

[PacoG]

How the Church operates within his diocese is the Bishop’s responsibility. Catholic Bishops generally agree on matters on a provincial basis through the Bishops’ Conference and these base their decisions upon guidelines provided by Rome.

Following the Second Vatican Council, the Tridentine Rite was phased out for public Masses. It was still allowed in private. Where the furniture so allowed, the new rite required the priest to face the congregation. Most Bishops’ Conferences agreed that churches in their areas should be rearranged to facilitate Mass being said with the priest behind the altar facing the congregation. Some Bishops continued to allow Tridentine Mass with the priest ad orientem, but it was rare. That allowed various groups, notably SSPX to break away from the authority of local Bishops and defy the authority of the Second Vatican Council.

In an attempt to reconcile the Catholic Church and the various breakaway groups, our present Pope has rehabilitated the Tridentine Mass as the Extraordinary Rite effectively giving carte blanche for priests of an archaic disposition to stand between the Eucharist and the congregation. It is therefore no longer appropriate for Bishops to forbid this practice.

What’s your citation on this. I seem to recall that Pope John Paul II and his Curia did a lot to clarify the role of the episcopal conferences. And as a general rule, they don’t have much legislative authority. Their guidelines have as much authority as a bishop is willing to implement them in his diocese. They DO NOT have the same authority as a provincial council or a national council. (The only exception being the sex abuse guidelines in the United States which was submitted to Rome for approval as particular law.)

In the United States, there has been a push by some bishops to call for a national council (something that hasn’t been had since the Council of Baltimore when there was only province). The belief is that national council would be able to deal with modern issues where the USCCB lacks the authority. From what I understand, because the U.S. lacks a primate (although the archbishop of Baltimore is given pride of place and is a de facto primate), the USCCB is the only body that can call one (but that is only speculation from this board ).

In short, what is your citation for this?

 

[Chatter163]

Read this Roman communication, which would seem to preclude speaking in absolute terms one way or the other.

 

[TheMc]

Theoretically, he should not, but in real life, he can, because he holds power over his priests. Just as theoretically, the bishop should allow the EF and not oppose it, if he does, he may give priests celebrating it a hard time, even though they are perfectly within their rights to celebrate without his permission.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I know that a diocesan bishop is the authority over the liturgy in his diocese. I am not sure if a bishop would do this. If he did it would be strange that he prevent a priest from celebrating in what is a legitimate and valid manner.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I know that a diocesan bishop is the authority over the liturgy in his diocese. I am not sure if a bishop would do this. If he did it would be strange that he prevent a priest from celebrating in what is a legitimate and valid manner.

In all seriousness, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense to celebrate the OF facing away from the people if there’s a free standing altar present. Facing away from the congregation will only cause confusion. It also might be that the priest in question was doing more than simply facing a certain way, he may have been mixing certain EF aspects into the OF. Not to mention that many parishes are not built east/west anymore so when facing away from the people the priest might not actually be facing east.

 

[roadsend]

As vatican II (Sacrosanctum Consilium) says
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

What the laws determine as to the bishop’s authority is actually quite limited.

However, in the real world bishops do what they darn well please because they, in effect, sign the pay and pension checks. They also determine priest assignments and a whole lot of other things.
So, many bishops can and do determine their own liturgical law as well as tolerate/encourage all forms of liturgical abuse with which we are inflicted and there really isn’t much that a faithful and orthodox padre can do about it.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

In all seriousness, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense to celebrate the OF facing away from the people if there’s a free standing altar present. Facing away from the congregation will only cause confusion. It also might be that the priest in question was doing more than simply facing a certain way, he may have been mixing certain EF aspects into the OF. Not to mention that many parishes are not built east/west anymore so when facing away from the people the priest might not actually be facing east.

I don’t think it’s absolutely essential to face east. What I believe is that when the priest has his back to the people, everyone is facing in the same direction with the priest leading the congregation in prayer. I suppose this comes down to a matter of personal preference. It certainly isn’t borrowing from the EF to face in the same direction as the congregation. Our priest celebrates facing the same as the congregation at a freestanding altar.

 

[TheMc]

I know that a diocesan bishop is the authority over the liturgy in his diocese. I am not sure if a bishop would do this. If he did it would be strange that he prevent a priest from celebrating in what is a legitimate and valid manner.

Not only a legitimate way, but one that holds much more history, tradition and symbolism.

 

[TheMc]

In all seriousness, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense to celebrate the OF facing away from the people if there’s a free standing altar present. Facing away from the congregation will only cause confusion. It also might be that the priest in question was doing more than simply facing a certain way, he may have been mixing certain EF aspects into the OF. Not to mention that many parishes are not built east/west anymore so when facing away from the people the priest might not actually be facing east.

Really? Confuse people? Is it also confusing for this dude in fancy robes to hold up a little circle of what they says is bread and tell everyone it’s his body? It doesn’t confuse most Catholics because they’ve been taught what it means and why we do it and what it’s for. Same thing with ad orientem. I mean no disrespect, but that’s a pretty lame excuse…

And anyways, AdO is a legit posture in the OF. There’s no more mixing of rites than there is when he says “The Lord be with you.” (That came from the EF too, don’t you know.) And as for the east/west issue, the main point is not facing east, the main point is facing a common direction.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Not only a legitimate way, but one that holds much more history, tradition and symbolism.

I don’t know if I’d say “much more” history, tradition, and symbolism. In many early churches ad orientem was one and the same with versus populum. Indeed in some ancient churches its impossible not to face versus populum.

As for symbolism, there’s symbolism where ever people choose to see it. And just because we tell someone that object A symbols theology B it doesn’t mean people will appreciate it. Even in these forums there’s plenty of questions about the priest “turning his back” to the people.

Really? Confuse people? Is it also confusing for this dude in fancy robes to hold up a little circle of what they says is bread and tell everyone it’s his body? It doesn’t confuse most Catholics because they’ve been taught what it means and why we do it and what it’s for. Same thing with ad orientem. I mean no disrespect, but that’s a pretty lame excuse…

Lame to people who spend their days on CAF. Not so much to the average person who actually likes the Mass as it is, more or less. The idea that the majority of people will like it if they just give it a chance is the battle cry of those who simply think that because they like something everyone else should as well.

And, yes, if a priest celebrated Mass ad orientem it would cause confusion. As in the case of the priest in our OP, do you really think that the bishop simply found out through some inane manner what the priest was doing and decided it had to stop? Or is it more likely that parishioners complained to the bishop’s office about it? In my experience, bishops rarely put a stop to legitimate options that are very popular with the parish.

And anyways, AdO is a legit posture in the OF.

Never said it wasn’t.

There’s no more mixing of rites than there is when he says “The Lord be with you.” (That came from the EF too, don’t you know.)

Perhaps it would be better if you didn’t take my comment out of context. I proposed the theory that perhaps ad orientem wasn’t the only thing the priest was doing.

And as for the east/west issue, the main point is not facing east, the main point is facing a common direction.

Seeing that ad orientem means “to the east” it would seem to be quite integral to its true meaning/symbolism. And facing the east figures quite prominently in the early Church writings. When a common direction is mentioned by the early Church writers its specifically mentioned that everyone turns to face east.

Obviously a common direction is part of it, but its main point does indeed seem to have originally been to face the rising sun (son).

 

[TheMc]

Lame to people who spend their days on CAF. Not so much to the average person who actually likes the Mass as it is, more or less. The idea that the majority of people will like it if they just give it a chance is the battle cry of those who simply think that because they like something everyone else should as well.

Maybe the reason it’s lame to people who spend their days on CAF is because the people who spend their days on CAF are frequently the ones who know what the church teaches, and why.

The point I’m trying to make is this: We should not be so strongly against change because we think (or even know) people will be confused. We should not compromise our worship because of popular demand.

This also touches on another thing our Holy Father has spoken of: The Creative Minority (or CMR, for short). As christians, we need to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, not because it’s popular. Ie, the final goal should not be butts in the pews, but rather, the final goal should be solid liturgy and solid teaching, and if we do that, then the people will come. If we water it down to try and get as many people as possible, we risk loosing them all. We risk loosing the more spiritually mature because there is nothing challenging them. We risk loosing the others because there is nothing they can’t find somewhere else. If the church just becomes a club, we’ve lost the point. If church is supposed to be exciting, we can’t compete with the culture.

We may “lose” some along the way, (becoming the creative minority), but in the end, it will be better for all. Watering down for some is hurtful to all.

Our Holy Father has spoken as ad orientem as a preferred way to worship. Yes, initially, it may cause confusion. When does change not bring confusion?

Just look at our president’s “granny-killer” name calling to the GOP trying to cut spending. Obviously, the spending needs to be cut, because as in any budget, the in must always be more than the out, and if it’s not, you’re in serious trouble. Ask any family or business.

It did cause some confusion when my parish made the jump. It also caused some great rejoicing. People have confusion in their lives. It’s part of life. Is our Mass more reverent, and even, dare I say, are people smarter and more informed after the whole situation is finished? I’d say yes.

Just a question: do you think people were possibly confused after the council when all these changes were made in the first place?