J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
and
and
Jim
- Status
B
benedictgal
Guest
First of all, it would help if you provided the name of the document you have just cited. While the GIRM and RS make provisions for the bishop, he cannot overrule what the Apostolic See has promulgated. Thus, he cannot ban something that is legitimate, such as using the ad orientsum posture, celebrating the OF in Latin or not dcitating a posture for after-Communion.
When such things have happened, the faithful have requested intervention by the Holy See and the CDWDS has attested to the fact that the bishop cannot ban things that are already allowed universally.
J
japhy
Guest
Let me repeat my “challenge” to you:
Your “answer” is not sufficient. Your quote does not show that a bishop has this particular power. His power is restricted by law, and the power of bodies of bishops is also restricted by law. Can you show that, within the law, a bishop may forbid ad orientem worship, praying the Mass in Latin, or reception of Holy Communion on the tongue?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
We’ve been through this same argument hunderds of times in this forum, and neither side has changed their position.
However, I’ve yet to see Mass(other than the TLM) said, ad orientum, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happen.
As for the authority of the Bishop, it is quite clear;
The instruction itself recalls how the Diocesan Bishop is “the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life.” (RS, no. 19) and quotes from the Code of Canon Law, which directs that it pertains to the Diocesan Bishop (CIC, no. 838 §4) “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.” (RS, no. 21, citing CIC, no. 838 §4)
and
In regard to the celebration of the Eucharist, the Diocesan Bishop is given a particular role in the publication of norms for the regulation of the liturgy in his particular diocese. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] assigns to the Diocesan Bishop the publication of norms on concelebration (GIRM, no. 202), service at the altar (GIRM, no. 107), Holy Communion under both kinds (GIRM, nos. 282-283), the construction and renovation of church Buildings (GIRM, no. 291 and 315), posture [GIRM no. 43.3, liturgical music (GIRM, nos. 48, 87), and the establishment of days of prayer (GIRM, no. 373). (see “The Diocesan Bishop and the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, in The BCL Newsletter: July, 2002, page 82. Also available at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml). Other rights of the Diocesan Bishop to regulate the liturgy are described by documents other than the GIRM, including the regulation of Masses on radio, television and via the internet, and his responsibility to establish a diocesan calendar. With the exception of these and other modifications of the law explicitly assigned to the Diocesan Bishop, no additional changes to liturgical law may be introduced to Diocesan liturgical practice without the specific prior of the Holy See.
.usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/rsbishop.shtml
Jim
However, I’ve yet to see Mass(other than the TLM) said, ad orientum, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happen.
As for the authority of the Bishop, it is quite clear;
The instruction itself recalls how the Diocesan Bishop is “the first steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to him, is the moderator, promoter and guardian of her whole liturgical life.” (RS, no. 19) and quotes from the Code of Canon Law, which directs that it pertains to the Diocesan Bishop (CIC, no. 838 §4) “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound.” (RS, no. 21, citing CIC, no. 838 §4)
and
In regard to the celebration of the Eucharist, the Diocesan Bishop is given a particular role in the publication of norms for the regulation of the liturgy in his particular diocese. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] assigns to the Diocesan Bishop the publication of norms on concelebration (GIRM, no. 202), service at the altar (GIRM, no. 107), Holy Communion under both kinds (GIRM, nos. 282-283), the construction and renovation of church Buildings (GIRM, no. 291 and 315), posture [GIRM no. 43.3, liturgical music (GIRM, nos. 48, 87), and the establishment of days of prayer (GIRM, no. 373). (see “The Diocesan Bishop and the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, in The BCL Newsletter: July, 2002, page 82. Also available at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml). Other rights of the Diocesan Bishop to regulate the liturgy are described by documents other than the GIRM, including the regulation of Masses on radio, television and via the internet, and his responsibility to establish a diocesan calendar. With the exception of these and other modifications of the law explicitly assigned to the Diocesan Bishop, no additional changes to liturgical law may be introduced to Diocesan liturgical practice without the specific prior of the Holy See.
.usccb.org/liturgy/q%26a/rsbishop.shtml
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
As far as Jesus facing the same direction as the Apostles, being that this was a Seder meal, where they would’ve been sitting in a “U” shape, with Jesus at the bottom of the U and the apostles facing on each side, facing inward. In other words, Jesus would’ve been facing them, not with his back to them.
FYI, the Leonardo Da Vinci painting of the Last Supper, is historical inaccurate, for those who are referencing it.
Jim
FYI, the Leonardo Da Vinci painting of the Last Supper, is historical inaccurate, for those who are referencing it.
Jim
B
Brendan
Guest
No, this is incorrect. When Bishop Foley, of Birmingham AL attempted to prevent EWTN from celebrating the liturgy ad orientum, EWTN appealed to the Vatican. The Vatican stated that the normative posture for the Mass is either position, and since the Bishop is tasked with enforcing the liturgical norms, the bishop is to all all that is normative.
It therefore commanded Bishop Foley to recind his prohibition of ad orientium liturgies.
The Vatican DID say that the bishop has the right to allow or disallow Masses to be televised, so Bishop Foley simply chose not to allow ad orientum Masses to be televised.
B
Brendan
Guest
Jesus is allowed to face them, the Apostles were all Bishops.
No one here is talking the position of the celebrant in regards to attending Bishops, but rather we are discussing the position of the celebrant relative to the un-ordained Faithful, of which there were none at the Last Supper.
B
Brendan
Guest
Correct, as Cardinal Esteves noted, the Latin is much less abiguous.
The ‘quod’ modifies the main premise of the sentance, the first clause, the ‘Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum’; that the altar should be built away from the wall whenever possible.
The secondary clause, to allow a Mass facing the people, is not modified by the qualifer.
The purpose clause with *‘ut … possit’ *is inserted into 'Altare … a pariete seiunctum, quod expedit" and does not modify ‘versus populum’
In other words, the altar should be built away from the the wall whenever possible,
J
japhy
Guest
I will change my position when confronted with evidence that a bishop may legally forbid a universal practice of the Church.
I haven’t personally seen it either (outside of the EF), but Pope Benedict celebrated ad orientem back in January.
(GIRM, nos. 48, 87), and the establishment of days of prayer (GIRM, no. 373). (see “The Diocesan Bishop and the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, in The BCL Newsletter: July, 2002, page 82. Also available at usccb.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml)). Other rights of the Diocesan Bishop to regulate the liturgy are described by documents other than the GIRM, including the regulation of Masses on radio, television and via the internet, and his responsibility to establish a diocesan calendar. With the exception of these and other modifications of the law explicitly assigned to the Diocesan Bishop, no additional changes to liturgical law may be introduced to Diocesan liturgical practice without the specific prior of the Holy See.
So we are still left wondering if a Bishop can outlaw Latin, ad orientem (which is posture!), or Communion on the tongue. That is, is such power within his competency? I posit that he cannot, that it is not.
When it comes to Latin…
- GIRM 12: “Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin…”
- GIRM 41: “Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin…”
- GIRM 160-161: “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. … The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.”
- Response to Dubium on Communion in the Hand: “…in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms…”
- Redemptionis Sacramentum 92: “Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue…”
What does GIRM 43.3 govern? The posture of the faithful throughout the various parts of the Mass (i.e. when to sit, stand, and kneel). That doesn’t which direction a priest faces. What is interesting is that GIRM 42 (which mentions the posture of the priest) says that “attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.” Since ad orientem is a “traditional practice” and can “[serve] the common spiritual good” and is not forbidden by the GIRM (and in fact is implicit in the Missal and GIRM itself, see nn. 243-244), it is an option available to the priest.
Also, see the oft-referenced “Letter on the position of the priest during the Eucharistic Liturgy”. It says, in part: “[GIRM 299] 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.” Here the Congregation for Divine Worship authoritatively interprets GIRM 299 to mean that both versus populum and ad orientem celebrations are permitted by the GIRM.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
What am I missing here? This line of reasoning seems absurd to me. So the Popes have been doing “what they wanted to do” instead of “what was faithful to do”? Weren’t they all at Vatican II? As in, don’t you think that the guys with the authority to write and approve the documents knew what the documents said by the time they were done? Or did they just sign them without reading them over, or what?
IMHO, things have “worked out” already, except for those Catholics who are more faithful to rubrics than the Pope.
L
LilyM
Guest
There are places (IIRC Assumption Grotto in Detroit is one) that have Latin NO and say it ‘ad orientem’ as well.
B
Brendan
Guest
Our parish ( SS Cyril and Methodius in the Detroit area) also had an NO Latin Mass said ad orientum.
That became a EF Mass a few months ago.
T
THurifer2
Guest
[Edited]
Vatican II ended Dec. 8 1965 the new mass wasn’t born until 69…unlike todays “changes” which take the USCCB and eternity to implement the Novus Ordo transition was like a bolt of lightening.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The Bishop had the authority on the televised Mass, just as he has authority over the Masses said in the parishes in his dioceses. The monestaries however, he does not, which is why Bishop Foley lost on this issue.
Jim
P
peary
Guest
Welcome to the so-called ‘spirit’ of Vatican II. Actually, this stuff was being taught in the seminaries prior to the Council and when the Council was over, they let loose with a barrage of priests who were saturated with all sorts of new ideas about liturgy and decided to present it in variated forms. I think this was probably going on in religious orders too, and then when reality ‘hit’, a lot of the older priests and religious went through a vocation crisis because those in power during the 60s began catering to the younger ones and the ‘new’ ideas causing a great rift and a discontinuity in how religious life should be led, and a questioning on the nature of the Church in particular.
[Edited]
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
You made this part up, right?
The missal we use is of Paul VI. If he wasn’t happy with the NO, he wouldn’t have put together the new Missal without making changes that he would see fit.
Jim
E
ethelzguy
Guest
I think post number 5 pretty well spelled it out. But we’re still beating it to death…
No matter what you put in front of some of the traditional crowd, they just can’t accept it.
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually, post number 5 didn’t spell it out.
The Vatican clarifed the abiguity in the English edition that does not exist in the authorative Latin.
Read posts 30 and 45
N
nightwalker
Guest
Post #5 doesn’t address the fact that there have been clarifications that mas is permitted either way, as recently as the latest edition of the GIRM. Nor does it explain the Pope’s moving the altar he celebrates Mass on for his household back to the wall, nor does it explain the Papal Mass in the Sistine Chapel using the High Altar.
Of course it also doesn’t address the main point of the OP (as far as I can tell the thread got immediately hijacked): Why did we turn the altars around? Realizing the psychological and spiritual reasons for ‘ad orientem’ and ‘versus populum’ it is a very good question.
Of course it also doesn’t address the main point of the OP (as far as I can tell the thread got immediately hijacked): Why did we turn the altars around? Realizing the psychological and spiritual reasons for ‘ad orientem’ and ‘versus populum’ it is a very good question.
P
peary
Guest
**Technically, in the Tridentine Liturgy, the priest does NOT turn his back on the people. BOTH FACE THE BLESSED SACRAMENT IN THE TABERNACLE AS WELL AS EAST. There is supplication by the community of believers TO God.
In the Novus Ordo, it is the priest who turns his back to the Blessed Sacrament if the Tabernacle is still behind him, and the people are turned toward the priest. It is more of an emphasis on grace coming FROM God through the priest and supplication coming FROM the people participating WITH the priest. There is a big difference here, and I think, when understood correctly, the Novus Ordo DOES fulfill more of a clarity of worship.**
In the Novus Ordo, it is the priest who turns his back to the Blessed Sacrament if the Tabernacle is still behind him, and the people are turned toward the priest. It is more of an emphasis on grace coming FROM God through the priest and supplication coming FROM the people participating WITH the priest. There is a big difference here, and I think, when understood correctly, the Novus Ordo DOES fulfill more of a clarity of worship.**
- Status