D
Pope wants crucifix at the centre of ALL westward-facing altars during Mass, says papal MC. So why do our bishops ignore him?
- Status
S
Seamus_L
Guest
And some people are pushing the idea that the Bishop’s are the final authority within there dicoeses.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
But they are.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Maybe if you’re Orthodox or Orthodox in Communion you believe that, but Traditional Catholics and even moderately Conservative ones don’t believe it.
O
Ocarm
Guest
Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.
(See vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1E.HTM)
If the Holy Father’s preference in this matter is a recommendation and not a decree, the bishops are entitled not to follow the recommendation. The Holy Father is, of course, able to raise this matter during the ad limina visit later this month, and as the holder of supreme executive power in the Church on earth could decide to replace the recommendation with a decree. Until then, the bishops retain the right - and ‘right’ is the correct term here - to decide for themselves whether the practice is introduced or not.
Whether the bishops are correct to ignore Pope Benedict’s recommendations, or being more pragmatic, correct to take considerable time before introducing them, is open to question; but their ability under canon law to do so is not.
The Holy Father is not, it seems to me, an Ultramontanist, and is generally disposed towards persuasion rather than executive order. That may not be to the liking of everyone, but if one has respect for his authority and decisions, and favours absolute obedience to same, surely we must also respect his decision to opt for a discursive rather than dictatorial approach when he so chooses. If he has not yet made the issue a matter of decree, no doubt he has his reasons.
(See vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1E.HTM)
If the Holy Father’s preference in this matter is a recommendation and not a decree, the bishops are entitled not to follow the recommendation. The Holy Father is, of course, able to raise this matter during the ad limina visit later this month, and as the holder of supreme executive power in the Church on earth could decide to replace the recommendation with a decree. Until then, the bishops retain the right - and ‘right’ is the correct term here - to decide for themselves whether the practice is introduced or not.
Whether the bishops are correct to ignore Pope Benedict’s recommendations, or being more pragmatic, correct to take considerable time before introducing them, is open to question; but their ability under canon law to do so is not.
The Holy Father is not, it seems to me, an Ultramontanist, and is generally disposed towards persuasion rather than executive order. That may not be to the liking of everyone, but if one has respect for his authority and decisions, and favours absolute obedience to same, surely we must also respect his decision to opt for a discursive rather than dictatorial approach when he so chooses. If he has not yet made the issue a matter of decree, no doubt he has his reasons.
J
jc-servant
Guest
I have no idea what “westward facing” means. Is this some technical term speaking to the orientation of the priest during mass because I’ve never seen it used before in that manner? If this is meant literally as a compass direction, then our priest would be celebrating mass facing north or south depending on whether it was N.O or T.L.M. liturgy. Our parish church was built within the last 10 years in the basilica style with the alter in such a position under the dome that either type of mass can be celebrated using it, but the altar is on the south end of the church.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Just like they did with Summorum Pontificum or any reform of the reform. They will ignore it!. Sad isn’t it. The Pope needs to “mandate” it for every order and parish.
S
Stylites
Guest
I had heard that term recently, too, and am unsure what it specifically refers to, as our parish faces West and the priest faces East, but it is a modern building. Here’s an article I found which explains that Churches traditionally were built with an Eastern-looking direction:
The whole article is worth a read, and is rather biting at times.
.
R
rep140
Guest
What if the church does not have an East-West axis? My present parish has the altar on the East side. However, our diocesan cathedral, the church in my home town, and at least one church close to where I live now do not have an East-West axis. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but each of these 3 churches have the altar at the South end.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
So that means if the priest is facing east and the congregation is facing west then there’s no need to place a crucifix in the center of the altar?
R
rlg94086
Guest
I’m thinking that misses the point entirely.
It has nothing to do with East-West. The “westward” comment is referring to a priest “facing the people,” since westward is the direction that the priest would be facing in the vast majority of parishes.
It would seem to me that the Holy Father is saying that any priest who is saying Mass ad populum should have a crucifix on the center of the alter. Do you disagree?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The following link
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000051.htm
relates what was said IN the interview, but is not the interview verbatim. It’s from Catholic News Service. Does the OP have the interview in it’s entireity? From CNS, it doesn’t look as though the Holy Father has mandated the placement of the Crucifix in the center of every Catholic altar. Why would it have to be ON the altar? If our priest were to decide to turn and offer the Holy Sacrifice ad orientum or, at least, versus populum (as he would then be facing true west), he and we would be facing a very large traditional looking Crucifix (our tabernacle is just to one side of the altar). Why would it have to be on the altar?
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000051.htm
relates what was said IN the interview, but is not the interview verbatim. It’s from Catholic News Service. Does the OP have the interview in it’s entireity? From CNS, it doesn’t look as though the Holy Father has mandated the placement of the Crucifix in the center of every Catholic altar. Why would it have to be ON the altar? If our priest were to decide to turn and offer the Holy Sacrifice ad orientum or, at least, versus populum (as he would then be facing true west), he and we would be facing a very large traditional looking Crucifix (our tabernacle is just to one side of the altar). Why would it have to be on the altar?
R
rlg94086
Guest
I’m confused by your question. Of course, you wouldn’t need a crucifix on the altar if the priest is facing ad orientem (versus populum). That is the whole point! It is only needed if the priest isn’t facing ad orientum (versus populum).
BTW…there is nothing in Vatican II that calls for the priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice ad populum. This is a common mistaken assumption, but I’m guessing you know that…
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Ah, I see, the Crucifix should be on altar if the priest is facing the people.I’m confused by your question. Of course, you wouldn’t need a crucifix on the altar if the priest is facing ad orientem (versus populum). That is the whole point! It is only needed if the priest isn’t facing ad orientum (versus populum).
BTW…there is nothing in Vatican II that calls for the priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice ad populum. This is a common mistaken assumption, but I’m guessing you know that…
Yes, I did know that VII did not call for that. VII did not call for a great number of things that are legitimately permitted, however, and it isn’t the final word on what the Mass ought to look like (it did not call for an all-vernacular Mass, but that exists by proper authority and I think it is entirely beneficial…just as an example).
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, the wording is not that of a mandate or decree. In the article the Msgr. quotes
The priest and people most certainly do not pray one to the other, but to the one Lord. Therefore, they stare in the same direction during prayer: either towards the east as a cosmic symbol of the Lord who comes, or, where this is not possible, towards the image of Christ in the apse, towards a crucifix, or simply towards the heavens, as our Lord Himself did in his priestly prayer the night before His Passion (John 17.1)
There are three options in this statement:
The priest and people most certainly do not pray one to the other, but to the one Lord. Therefore, they stare in the same direction during prayer: either towards the east as a cosmic symbol of the Lord who comes, or, where this is not possible, towards the image of Christ in the apse, towards a crucifix, or simply towards the heavens, as our Lord Himself did in his priestly prayer the night before His Passion (John 17.1)
There are three options in this statement:
*]Everyone faces in the same direction
*]If the priest is facing the people there is a crucifix on the altar so that the priest and people are praying toward the crucifix.
*]Or simply toward the heavens
But the Msgr. also makes it clear that this is a proposal, not a mandate. Unless it becomes a mandate, canon law stands as it is. The bishop, in the case of diocesan churches and the major superior, in the case of religious chapels and oratories, is the final authority.
There is nothing in canon law that says that a priest may not place a crucifix on the altar. It simply says that the bishop is the one who can order it to happen in his diocese. Therefore, there is no disobedience involved here.
We have to be very careful not to label something what it’s not.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
SP is a little different. SP is about the Extraordianry Form of the mass. The Holy Father made it clear that any priest, except those who belong to religious orders, can celebrate the EF and do not need persmission. For those who belong to religious orders, he left that up to the authority of the Major Superior, the Constitutions of the Religious Community or the General Chapter. The one thing that popes avoid at all costs is to involve themselves in the internal affairs of religious orders of men. The reason is simple. It confuses things. Relgious orders of men have rules written by their founders and approved by popes, usually with Papal Bulls. To change those rules, the current pope would have to undo the Papal Bull issued by a previous pope. This has never been done. It can be done. Any pope can require what is called a “rescript” of the holy rule of a religious order. But not pope has ever done it.
There is a law in place that says that anything that has been in place for more than 100 years is binding until it is abrogated. The five rules that govern religious life have been in place for at least 800 years. The last rule was the Franciscan Rule, written in 1209. All other statutes and constitutions that govern religious are based on one of the five rules. Most follow the Augustinian Rule, which is over 1500 years old.
I can understand a pope not wanting to touch a rule that has been in effect for that long and works… These rules have worked and continue to work today.
This question is not about the form of the mass, meaning EF or OF. It’s aboiut which way we face. The statement in the article is clear that this is a proposal, not a decree as was SP. Even SP had certain parameters, the most important being that the OF has to be preserved as the normal form for the Roman Rite.
I would not bring SP into this discussion, because the two questions are different. SP answered the question concerning the Tridentine form. This article is about the direction in which people and priests face in the OF. We’ll just have to wait to see if there is a decree or if it will be left up to the bishops and religious superiors of men to decide for their jurisdictions.
So far, the bishops and religious superiors have the right to decide. They are not being disobedient. As I said in my post above. We must be careful not to label something what it is not. A proposal is not a decree. Not going along with a proposal is not the same as disobedience. Disobedience is refusal to follow an order. But no order has been given. We will just have to wait and see what happens.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
rlg94086
Guest
Actually, the wording is not that of a mandate or decree. In the article the Msgr. quotes
The priest and people most certainly do not pray one to the other, but to the one Lord. Therefore, they stare in the same direction during prayer: either towards the east as a cosmic symbol of the Lord who comes, or, where this is not possible, towards the image of Christ in the apse, towards a crucifix, or simply towards the heavens, as our Lord Himself did in his priestly prayer the night before His Passion (John 17.1)
There are three options in this statement:
*]Everyone faces in the same direction
*]If the priest is facing the people there is a crucifix on the altar so that the priest and people are praying toward the crucifix.
*]Or simply toward the heavens
But the Msgr. also makes it clear that this is a proposal, not a mandate. Unless it becomes a mandate, canon law stands as it is. The bishop, in the case of diocesan churches and the major superior, in the case of religious chapels and oratories, is the final authority.
There is nothing in canon law that says that a priest may not place a crucifix on the altar. It simply says that the bishop is the one who can order it to happen in his diocese. Therefore, there is no disobedience involved here.
We have to be very careful not to label something what it’s not.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Hi Brother JR,
Not everyone has mentioned it as a point of disobedience. However, I can’t understand why someone would find the idea presented by the Holy Father objectionable. Are people repulsed by the idea of the priest having a crucifix on the altar?? I personally don’t get it.
J
JReducation
Guest
First, my statement was for those who are calling it an act of disobedience. You’re right, not every has done so. But all of us must be careful to be charitable and not label people incorrectly. Those who are using the word “disobedient” need to be careful. It is not disobedience.
Seond, I don’t think that people are repulsed by the idea of a crucifix on the altar. I have never heard anyone say anything against it. I just think that it has not been discussed or brought up in most places. In those places where it is done, people don’t even notice it. If they do, they act as if they don’t notice it; because they don’t comment on it.
Some of our houses do it and the brothers never noticed the change until someone from the outside pointed it out. I remember visiting our motherhouse. I did not notice it, until someone pointed it out to me. It’s also true that the crucifix on the altar at our motherhouse is not very big or fancy. It’s very simple. But I really don’t think that people find it objectionable.
I have found that CAFers often build things up more than the average person does. If you put a crucifix on the altar in your average parish, most people would probably like it, unless it’s really ugly. Then it is distracting. But if it’s a work of art, people would think nothing of it.
I know that a monstrance is not the same thing, but it’s a good example of something that happened in our house. Two parishes were merging. The pastor gave us one of the monstrances. I believe he said that he now had five. Well, the story is that when the monstrance was first brough to the house and I looked at it my jaw dropped. It is the ugliest thing that I have ever seen. It’s probably very expensive. It’s white an yellow gold with stones in it. But it’s just too much. Obviously, it was designed for a big church where you’re looking at it from a distance, not a small chapel where you’re four ft. from it. I said that we would not be using it, because it’s more of a distraction than anything else. So we have kept using our little monstrance which is the perfect size for our tiny space.
The same can be said about a crucifix on the altar. If the crucifix is not an eye sore, most people won’t even notice and those who do will not mind it. People don’t make issues over things like this.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Unless its actually inserted into liturgical documents then the Pope is entitled to prefer something but no one else is under any obligation to do it.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Is it important that the crucifix be at the center of the altar, as opposed to a crucifix standing separately just beyond the altar?
- Status