extent of a bishop's authority

[NewEnglandPriest]

ok. what if the priest refuses?

Refuses what? Refuses to say Mass ad orientem? If its a small group that want it then nothing will be done. If its a majority then perhaps something would be worked out through the bishop’s office.

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?

Yes, he can. However if too many parishioners complain to the bishop’s office then the bishop will most likely find a less controversial pastor for the parish.

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.

See comment above.

Being a pastor is about serving the spiritual needs of the parish. It’s not about imposing the pastor’s personal tastes/likes/preferences.

 

[april32010]

Another thought, YTC . . .
Do children love their parents more when they study everything there is to know about them?
Or do they, instead, love them because they love them … and have a deep relationship with them?

Yes, knowledge is good, but it is not always conducive to love. It may produce clanging symbols such as when people tend to look down on simplicity. The image of Jesus welcoming children on His lap is quite endearing to me and speaks volumes.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

LUMEN GENTIUM

1. Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them (58*) by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant.(169) This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.

 

[Sirach2]

NewEnglandPries:

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.

Thank you -
I misunderstood what source the two individuals were asking for, thinking they wanted proof that ad orientum could be used in an OF liturgy.
Actually, Brendan quoted the same source previously over this matter with Bishop Foley and Mother Angelica . I did not find anything in a forum search or the forum’s google search where he referenced an official ruling from the Vatican, other than this document he quoted, and which I requoted above. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363046&postcount=65

 

[archangel04]

Your perception of “seems that” is only a perception. How many OF Catholics have you actually engaged in dialog about these specifics, including their ages and catechetical background?

**To me, it “seems that” those who have chosen the EF exclusively have a good deal of bitterness, from all that I have read in the traditional forum. To fight back, they peruse document after document in efforts to prove their way is the only true way, and proselytize heavily to gain converts to their “side.” **

The majority of Catholics worshipping in the OF have no reason to defend their choice and are generally well satisfied, except for those in the minority who are unable to effect reversal in what they perceive as abuses, and carry similar bitterness.

My parish has a high number of daily mass attendees, suggesting to me that there are a good many people who love the mass enough to attend well beyond the requirement of weekly celebration.

Lol that’s funny, not surprised by your response at all though.

 

[archangel04]

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.

Same here personal experience.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Thank you -
I misunderstood what source the two individuals were asking for, thinking they wanted proof that ad orientum could be used in an OF liturgy.
Actually, Brendan quoted the same source previously over this matter with Bishop Foley and Mother Angelica . I did not find anything in a forum search or the forum’s google search where he referenced an official ruling from the Vatican, other than this document he quoted, and which I requoted above. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363046&postcount=65

Yeah, its a little weird that for all the claims in my google search that Bishop Foley got “smacked down” by the CDWDS there’s virtually no documentation posted. Lots and lots of claims that the CDWDS told him he couldn’t forbid it except for on TV and yet no one that I can find links or quotes anything from the CDWDS specifically on this matter.

 

[archangel04]

Another thought, YTC . . .
Do children love their parents more when they study everything there is to know about them?
Or do they, instead, love them because they love them … and have a deep relationship with them?

Yes, knowledge is good, but it is not always conducive to love. It may produce clanging symbols such as when people tend to look down on simplicity. The image of Jesus welcoming children on His lap is quite endearing to me and speaks volumes.

How do you love someone you don’t know? My love for my parents has grown over the years has I matured and truly seen the sacrifice they have done for me. The trust is always there but my love grew. The same can apply to a relationship between man and woman. No such thing as love at first sight, that’s the whole point of dating.

 

[Sirach2]

Archangel04:

Lol that’s funny, not surprised by your response at all though.

:thankyou:You are starting the new year out right, my most ardent supporter. I’m glad to have amused you. May I continue to do so.

 

[archangel04]

:thankyou:You are starting the new year out right, my most ardent supporter. I’m glad to have amused you. May I continue to do so.

I always do since everyday is a new day and gift from the Father. I am like a kid on Christmas day when it comes to life!

 

[JM3]

Yeah, its a little weird that for all the claims in my google search that Bishop Foley got “smacked down” by the CDWDS there’s virtually no documentation posted. Lots and lots of claims that the CDWDS told him he couldn’t forbid it except for on TV and yet no one that I can find links or quotes anything from the CDWDS specifically on this matter.

I found this, after a few hours of searching.

adoremus.org/NewLiturgy9102K.html

Must the priest always face the people?

Several early reports stated that the IGMR forbids priests to face, with the people, the “liturgical East” (ad orientem).

Recently, there has been some re-evaluation of the usual practice of the priest facing the people. In light of the experience since the Council that the transcendent or sacred dimension of the celebration of Mass has dramatically diminished, some priests now favor a return to the practice of the priest and people “facing God” together. Cardinal Ratzinger is among them. (See “The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer”, AB May 2000).

But a controversy arose last year when a bishop ruled that no priest within his diocese would be permitted to say Mass facing “East” (See “Bishop’s Decree Raises Questions”, AB November 1999).

Cardinal Medina Estévez, in a letter dated February 7 this year, responded to an inquiry from Bishop David Foley of Birmingham concerning the matter. In that letter (Prot. No. 2321/99/I), the Cardinal stated:

“As regards the position of the celebrating priest at the altar during Holy Mass, it is true as Your Excellency indicates that the rubrics of the Roman Missal, and in particular the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, foresee that the priest will face the body of people in the nave while leaving open the possibility of his celebrating towards the apse. These two options carry with them no theological or disciplinary stigma of any kind”.

 

[thomas_jd]

Yeah, its a little weird that for all the claims in my google search that Bishop Foley got “smacked down” by the CDWDS there’s virtually no documentation posted. Lots and lots of claims that the CDWDS told him he couldn’t forbid it except for on TV and yet no one that I can find links or quotes anything from the CDWDS specifically on this matter.

Read " Mother Angelica" by Raymond Arroyo . He cites the fax from CDWD dated November 8th 1999 printed below to Bishop Foley one month after Bishop Foleys law in the diocese of Birmingham, outlawing the ad orientum option to priests in his diocese. Bishop Foleys law is overturned in one month!

"…,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. "
I do not see this exchange as an endorsement for the Bishop,except he was granted the decision regarding televised masses to stop the ad orientum posture. I find it very puzzling and rather odd that the good Bishop “had personally celebrated the mass on camera at Mothers monastery since 1994, standing with his back to the people.” Again R .Arroyo

 

[JM3]

Read " Mother Angelica" by Raymond Arroyo . He cites the fax from CDWD dated November 8th 1999 printed below to Bishop Foley one month after Bishop Foleys law in the diocese of Birmingham, outlawing the ad orientum option to priests in his diocese. Bishop Foleys law is overturned in one month!

"…,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. "
I do not see this exchange as an endorsement for the Bishop,except he was granted the decision regarding televised masses to stop the ad orientum posture. I find it very puzzling and rather odd that the good Bishop “had personally celebrated the mass on camera at Mothers monastery since 1994, standing with his back to the people.” Again R .Arroyo

adoremus.org/2-00-hanceville.html

The ceremony of consecration, which relatively few people ever have the opportunity to witness, lasted about three and a half hours. A special choir and orchestra sang the Latin ordinary of the Mass, primarily the settings of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, with occasional English hymns. Most of the Mass was in English. Bishop David E. Foley of Birmingham officiated facing toward the congregation, after having decreed a month before the ceremony that Mass ad orientem (“toward the East” – with the priest facing the same direction as the people) is forbidden by Church law. While Bishop Foley gave Communion to the choir and orchestra, other celebrants administered it to the congregation, who knelt at the brass Communion rail.

The protocol # is in my previous post. Maybe someone can tell us what it really says.

 

[Brendan]

The protocol # is in my previous post. Maybe someone can tell us what it really says.

It answers a question that was at the heart of Bishop Foley’s decision to ban the ad orentium posture entirely.

As a bit of background that was made public in Arroyos’ book was that in early 1999, an EWTN priest, Fr. Fessio, was falsely accused of stating that ad orientum was the only legitimate posture for saying Mass.

Bishop Foley ( even though he had in years prior, said Mass on camera ad orientum at EWTN) issued a statement banning the celebration of Mass ad orientum.

He sited, as his authority, the "“absolute duty to protect [the liturgy] from innovation and sacrilege”. Bishop Foley’s statement also included the claim that the GIRM in effect had prohibited the celebration of Mass ad oreintum, and cited the unclear English in the GIRM.

The priests of EWTN filed an appeal to the the CDWDS.

Cardinal Medina responed, in both a direct fax to both EWTN and Bishop Foley as parties in the appeal, the contents of which Thomas already posted.

Cardinal Medina then released a responsum ( which you provided the protocol number) clarifing that the the GIRM does not, in fact, prohibit the ad orientum posture, and did so using the Latin original.

+Medina also clarified that there is no theological issues with either posture, addressing indirectly some of the points raised in +Foleys original ban, plus those liturgists on both ‘sides’ who raised supposed theological obejctions to their non favored posture.

After recieveing the fax, Bishp Foley recinded his original all out ban and put in place one that prohibited the telecast of ad orientum liturgies.

( and that too has pretty much fallen by the wayside when Pope Benedict began to publically say Mass ad orientum on occasion. It would have been very problematic for the Archbishop of Birmingham to try and explain to His Holiness as to why he was prohibiting the broadcast of public Papal Masses.)

 

[JM3]

adoremus.org/1199-Foley.html

The decree was sent to all priests and “juridical persons” in the diocese on October 18, to take effect on November 18.

The bishop’s introduction to the decree stated that a “well-intentioned but flawed movement” encourages priests “to take liberties with the Mass by celebrating in a manner called ad orientem, that is, with their backs to the people” without the permission of a bishop.

“This amounts to making a political statement, and is dividing the people”, Bishop Foley wrote.

But the rule of “custom” has not protected these traditional practices from attack by advocates of change who claim that the Church’s theology of the Eucharist was radically altered by the Second Vatican Council. In fact, incidents of coercive efforts of priests to interfere with legitimate options, or to make liturgical changes with no authorization whatever, have become alarmingly frequent. People also realize that effective action to correct fundamental errors which undermine the Catholic faith and divide the Church rests, essentially, with the bishops.

 

[GwenL]

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.

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

 

[JM3]

It answers a question that was at the heart of Bishop Foley’s decision to ban the ad orentium posture entirely.

As a bit of background that was made public in Arroyos’ book was that in early 1999, an EWTN priest, Fr. Fessio, was falsely accused of stating that ad orientum was the only legitimate posture for saying Mass.

Bishop Foley ( even though he had in years prior, said Mass on camera ad orientum at EWTN) issued a statement banning the celebration of Mass ad orientum.

He sited, as his authority, the "“absolute duty to protect [the liturgy] from innovation and sacrilege”. Bishop Foley’s statement also included the claim that the GIRM in effect had prohibited the celebration of Mass ad oreintum, and cited the unclear English in the GIRM.

The priests of EWTN filed an appeal to the the CDWDS.

Cardinal Medina responed, in both a direct fax to both EWTN and Bishop Foley as parties in the appeal, the contents of which Thomas already posted.

Cardinal Medina then released a responsum ( which you provided the protocol number) clarifing that the the GIRM does not, in fact, prohibit the ad orientum posture, and did so using the Latin original.

+Medina also clarified that there is no theological issues with either posture, addressing indirectly some of the points raised in +Foleys original ban, plus those liturgists on both ‘sides’ who raised supposed theological obejctions to their non favored posture.

After recieveing the fax, Bishp Foley recinded his original all out ban and put in place one that prohibited the telecast of ad orientum liturgies.

( and that too has pretty much fallen by the wayside when Pope Benedict began to publically say Mass ad orientum on occasion. It would have been very problematic for the Archbishop of Birmingham to try and explain to His Holiness as to why he was prohibiting the broadcast of public Papal Masses.)

You’re welcome.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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

There are three possibilities in how I understand what you’re saying here, and I don’t know which one is what you’re really saying.

 

[GwenL]

There are three possibilities in how I understand what you’re saying here, and I don’t know which one is what you’re really saying.

Well, anecdotes are interesting and make for good stories, but all together they don’t form a basis for a sound decision.

So, your personal experience is interesting. So is mine, by the way. But neither is necessarily an indicator of the actual state of affairs in the Church. Often they are not even good indicators of our own perceptions.

You summarized it yourself, when you said “isolated experiences and perceptions.” I was agreeing with you.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Read " Mother Angelica" by Raymond Arroyo . He cites the fax from CDWD dated November 8th 1999 printed below to Bishop Foley one month after Bishop Foleys law in the diocese of Birmingham, outlawing the ad orientum option to priests in his diocese. Bishop Foleys law is overturned in one month!

I have lots of other things to read, but thanks for finally a direct reference.