extent of a bishop's authority

[Angel_Gabriel]

interesting discussion

ok here’s another question. say a group of parishioners approaches their priest and wonders if they could have him say an OF Mass ad orientum, more latin, chant communion kneeling etc. is the priest at liberty to do this without the bishop’s approval?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

ok here’s another question. say a group of parishioners approaches their priest and wonders if they could have him say an OF Mass ad orientum, more latin, chant communion kneeling etc. is the priest at liberty to do this without the bishop’s approval?

As far as I know: yes.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

As far as I know: yes.

ok. what if the priest refuses?

Can the priest just go ahead and do this if there are NO parishioners who approach him about it; if it’s just his desire to do this…right? I guess that is where my original question comes into play. AFAIK the priest started doing those things without parishioner support…and he lost a good deal of them too. He is no longer there BTW.

 

[YoungTradCath]

ok. what if the priest refuses?

Can the priest just go ahead and do this if there are NO parishioners who approach him about it; if it’s just his desire to do this…right? I guess that is where my original question comes into play. AFAIK the priest started doing those things without parishioner support…and he lost a good deal of them too. He is no longer there BTW.

Sure he could. But the question then becomes, “Is it prudent?” And after that, the bishop could order him to revert.

 

[Sirach2]

The pastor has to consider the common good of all, rather than the request of a few.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

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.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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.

I think one of the main reasons that many people hate Catholic tradition is because they were conditioned to do so, especially the middle aged ones. They grew up in the hype and hysteria following Vatican II, and in a way, they’ve sort of “claimed” that as their identity marker in the Catholic world, so to speak.

I think that if those people, regardless of age, were sat down with and explained to the reasons behind, and the unmatchable beauty of, Catholic tradition, much of their seething abhorrence towards it would go away.

I truly believe that if people actually understood Catholic tradition, every Catholic would love it and prefer it, or at least acknowledge its unmatchable value, because I truly believe that the people who currently think otherwise do so not out of personal preference but because they were conditioned to do so. I really think much of this hate and fear of Catholic tradition is a manufactured generational identity thing.

 

[zab]

I think one of the main reasons that many people hate Catholic tradition is because they were conditioned to do so, especially the middle aged ones. They grew up in the hype and hysteria following Vatican II, and in a way, they’ve sort of “claimed” that as their identity marker in the Catholic world, so to speak.

I think that if those people, regardless of age, were sat down with and explained to the reasons behind, and the unmatchable beauty of, Catholic tradition, much of their seething abhorrence towards it would go away.

I truly believe that if people actually understood Catholic tradition, every Catholic would love it and prefer it, or at least acknowledge its unmatchable value, because I truly believe that the people who currently think otherwise do so not out of personal preference but because they were conditioned to do so. I really think much of this hate and fear of Catholic tradition is a manufactured generational identity thing.

I don’t know where you get that people, especially the middle aged, hate and have a “seething abhorrence” towards Catholic tradition.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t know where you get that people, especially the middle aged, hate and have a “seething abhorrence” towards Catholic tradition.

From personal experience, which I don’t need to prove.

I’m sorry if that offends you. I do not mean to say all middle aged people are of that opinion.

 

[Sirach2]

YoungTradCath:

From personal experience, which I don’t need to prove.
I’m sorry if that offends you. I do not mean to say all middle aged people are of that opinion.

And “from personal experience” on my end, it is typical that many middle-aged people who have a problem with the OF liturgy and left the Church – or if they remained, are the most vociferous in opposition to changes from what they grew up with and loved. You need to read posts in the TC Forum to realize how much more accurate is my encounter with this age group. Try reading some profiles and note the ages.

But we are talking about isolated experiences and perceptions. The more serious issue here is your labeling the majority with language that is unbefitting someone who professes to be a devoted traditionalist.

 

[YoungTradCath]

And “from personal experience” on my end, it is the middle-aged people that have a problem with the OF liturgy, left the Church, or if they remained, are the most vociferous in opposition to changes from what they grew up with and loved. You need to read posts in the TC Forum to realize how much more accurate is my encounter with this age group. Try reading some profiles and note the ages.

But we are talking about isolated experiences and perceptions. The more serious issue here is your labeling the majority with language that is unbefitting someone who professes to be a devoted traditionalist.

Yes, my personal experience has been that the EF parishes are frequented by more young people (as in late teens through early thirties) than I would have expected. In fact, the EF masses are frequented by many more young people than middle-aged or older people, and many of them are families with young children of their own.

And beyond that, I don’t mean to imply that the EF is the only side of the story. In my own OF-only (-_-) parish, there is a push for more traditional devotions and music, etc., along with the new church being built in a very traditional style, and it seems that most of the vocal opposition comes from those in their fifties and up, while most of the vocal support comes from those in their early twenties through early thirties.

But, as you say, isolated experiences and perceptions.

 

[Sirach2]

Much of these perceptions also depends on demographics. In a newer subdivision and growing residential area with an influx of young adults, it would be normal that their nearby parish will also consist of younger people. I lived in Florida for a few years and the majority in the churches there are gray-haired, consisting mostly of retirees.

It is really unfair to categorize and make claims such as yours when you have not lived in other communities in the USA. Being only eighteen yourself, it betrays a lack of knowledge in what you speak.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Much of these perceptions also depends on demographics. In a newer subdivision and growing residential area with an influx of young adults, it would be normal that their nearby parish will also consist of younger people. I lived in Florida for a few years and the majority in the churches there are gray-haired, consisting mostly of retirees.

It is really unfair to categorize and make claims such as yours when you have not lived in other communities in the USA. Being only eighteen yourself, it betrays a lack of knowledge in what you speak.

In this particular situation, the church is very old and is in a very crime-ridden area of the city. People get shot and killed outside the front doors all the time. But the parish is extremely active in many regards regardless.

My opinions are also based on discussions I’ve read on sites like Musica Sacra’s forums, which is run by young people, and also articles I’ve read on sites like New Liturgical Movement, which is also run by young people.

I mean, if one parish was the only basis for that statement, I wouldn’t have stated it.

 

[Brendan]

Yes.

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

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

Actually, No.

The issue of if a bishop can order a priest not to say the Mass ad orientum was settled by Rome.

Bishop Foley of Birmingham,AL attempted to prohibit the priests of EWTN from saying the Mass ad Orientum.

The priests appealed to Rome and Rome’s ruling was that the local ordinary did not have the authority to prohibit the Mass from being celebrated in a Normative posture ( both ad orientum and vs populum are normative in the OF).

THus any ordinary who attempts to restrict what ROme has deemed Normative, without the specific consent of Rome, would be acting against Sacrosanctum Concillium 22, which you so kindly quoted. The bishops authority only extends where allowed by liturgical law.

Rome DID clarify that the local ordinary had the authority to allow or disallow the broadcast of Masses within his diocese, so the end result was that the priests of EWTN could say the Mass ad orientium, but they could not televise those Masses.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Actually, No.

The issue of if a bishop can order a priest not to say the Mass ad orientum was settled by Rome.

Bishop Foley of Birmingham,AL attempted to prohibit the priests of EWTN from saying the Mass ad Orientum.

The priests appealed to Rome and Rome’s ruling was that the local ordinary did not have the authority to prohibit the Mass from being celebrated in a Normative posture ( both ad orientum and vs populum are normative in the OF).

THus any ordinary who attempts to restrict what ROme has deemed Normative, without the specific consent of Rome, would be acting against Sacrosanctum Concillium 22, which you so kindly quoted. The bishops authority only extends where allowed by liturgical law.

Rome DID clarify that the local ordinary had the authority to allow or disallow the broadcast of Masses within his diocese, so the end result was that the priests of EWTN could say the Mass ad orientium, but they could not televise those Masses.

Interesting. Do you think it reasonable to extend this to other “normative” options in the OF?

 

[Sirach2]

In this particular situation, the church is very old and is in a very crime-ridden area of the city. People get shot and killed outside the front doors all the time. But the parish is extremely active in many regards regardless.

That would explain clearly why the more aged parishioners go elsewhere.

My opinions are also based on discussions I’ve read on sites like Musica Sacra’s forums, which is run by young people, and also articles I’ve read on sites like New Liturgical Movement, which is also run by young people.

And is simply hearsay - the opinions of “young people.” It doesn’t change a thing as far as demonstrating proof, experience, demographics, and a host of other criteria. But have your way, I’m not going to rain on your parade.

 

[JM3]

Actually, No.

The issue of if a bishop can order a priest not to say the Mass ad orientum was settled by Rome.

Bishop Foley of Birmingham,AL attempted to prohibit the priests of EWTN from saying the Mass ad Orientum.

The priests appealed to Rome and Rome’s ruling was that the local ordinary did not have the authority to prohibit the Mass from being celebrated in a Normative posture ( both ad orientum and vs populum are normative in the OF).

THus any ordinary who attempts to restrict what ROme has deemed Normative, without the specific consent of Rome, would be acting against Sacrosanctum Concillium 22, which you so kindly quoted. The bishops authority only extends where allowed by liturgical law.

Rome DID clarify that the local ordinary had the authority to allow or disallow the broadcast of Masses within his diocese, so the end result was that the priests of EWTN could say the Mass ad orientium, but they could not televise those Masses.

Source?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Actually, No.

The issue of if a bishop can order a priest not to say the Mass ad orientum was settled by Rome.

Bishop Foley of Birmingham,AL attempted to prohibit the priests of EWTN from saying the Mass ad Orientum.

The priests appealed to Rome and Rome’s ruling was that the local ordinary did not have the authority to prohibit the Mass from being celebrated in a Normative posture ( both ad orientum and vs populum are normative in the OF).

THus any ordinary who attempts to restrict what ROme has deemed Normative, without the specific consent of Rome, would be acting against Sacrosanctum Concillium 22, which you so kindly quoted. The bishops authority only extends where allowed by liturgical law.

Rome DID clarify that the local ordinary had the authority to allow or disallow the broadcast of Masses within his diocese, so the end result was that the priests of EWTN could say the Mass ad orientium, but they could not televise those Masses.

Can you please provide a reference for this decision from the Apostolic See.

 

[Sirach2]

adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html

Letter on the position of the priest during the Eucharistic Liturgy

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Prot. No 2036/00/L
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in no. 299 of the Instituto Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which, during the Eucharistic liturgy, the position of the priest *versus absidem *[facing towards the apse] is to be excluded.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:
Negative, and in accordance with the following explanation.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html

To be fair, that document only states that ad orientem is not excluded by the GIRM’s recommendation of a free standing altar. The document says nothing about the bishop’s ability or inability to regulate amongst the legitimate options.