Vatican squelches rumors of new rules on Mass facing east

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Reading through some of these posts, I was struck by the above quote from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger posted by Ed. It makes the current controversy seem even more striking to me in its immediate response in opposition to what had been an ancient and venerable tradition.

I came across an article in First Things magazine which asks he question “Who’s Afraid of Ad Orientem?” Here is an excerpt:

“These interventions—like other, more vehement responses in some quarters of the blogosphere—leave one with the impression that, as the Catechism says of the death penalty, ad orientem celebration should be “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” Why the lack of a catholic appreciation for legitimate liturgical diversity? No one can truthfully claim that the Ordinary Form prohibits ad orientem celebration. So, who’s afraid of ad orientem worship, and why?”
Click to expand...
Excellent article.
 
Dr. Leroy Huizenga weighs in on the ad orientem controversy in the CWR. His article is quite detailed as to the requirements of the GIRM, and he concludes with this:

“The educated Catholic laity whom everyone from Augustine to Blessed John Henry Newman and the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council desired are here, and we can read. And so we ought to read again Cardinal Sarah’s ad orientem appeal in his now-famous address, and ask the question whether the Church’s liturgical tradition, the rubrics, and the GIRM favor him—does the Cardinal prefect responsible for the Church’s worship and sacraments not know the rubrics or the GIRM?—or rather those who wrongly wield the GIRM no. 299 against him. Who you gonna believe? Them, or your own eyes?”

The entire article can be found here:
Reason, Authority, and the Roman Rite
 
JimG said:
Dr. Leroy Huizenga weighs in on the ad orientem controversy in the CWR. His article is quite detailed as to the requirements of the GIRM, and he concludes with this:

“The educated Catholic laity whom everyone from Augustine to Blessed John Henry Newman and the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council desired are here, and we can read. And so we ought to read again Cardinal Sarah’s ad orientem appeal in his now-famous address, and ask the question whether the Church’s liturgical tradition, the rubrics, and the GIRM favor him—does the Cardinal prefect responsible for the Church’s worship and sacraments not know the rubrics or the GIRM?—or rather those who wrongly wield the GIRM no. 299 against him. Who you gonna believe? Them, or your own eyes?”

The entire article can be found here:
Reason, Authority, and the Roman Rite
Click to expand...
The answer to the bolded question is The Church and she has spoken. This has very little to do with the folks in the pews because most really don’t care. Your average person has no idea this is even a thing. I can’t imagine it changing my faith one way or the other.
 
J_Peterson said:
The answer to the bolded question is The Church and she has spoken. This has very little to do with the folks in the pews because most really don’t care. Your average person has no idea this is even a thing. I can’t imagine it changing my faith one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Not changing faith but maybe enhancing it?

I don’t know, in the grand scheme it isn’t a big deal.

But what do you consider the church? Just the Pope? He may be the supreme leader of the Catholic Church, but he isn’t the only leader and doesn’t have all the power and authority.

And by “she has spoken”, you mean she hasn’t changed anything right? B/c priests can still celebrate ad orientem like Cardinal Sarah recommended
 
CatholicSooner said:
Not changing faith but maybe enhancing it?

I don’t know, in the grand scheme it isn’t a big deal.

But what do you consider the church? Just the Pope? He may be the supreme leader of the Catholic Church, but he isn’t the only leader and doesn’t have all the power and authority.

And by “she has spoken”, you mean she hasn’t changed anything right? B/c priests can still celebrate ad orientem like Cardinal Sarah recommended
Click to expand...
Seriously, though - for some the “ad orientem” (what our priest-friend Don Ruggero calls ad absidem) direction may enhance worship. But for others, it would take away from it. And for some, like myself, the direction of the priest is immaterial - though actually hearing the words of the Eucharistic prayer is important to me. In truth, for me, it is the priest reciting the Eucharistic prayer audibly that makes me feel that he is offering the sacrifice in union with the congregation.
 
powerofk said:
Seriously, though - for some the “ad orientem” (what our priest-friend Don Ruggero calls ad absidem) direction may enhance worship. But for others, it would take away from it. And for some, like myself, the direction of the priest is immaterial - though actually hearing the words of the Eucharistic prayer is important to me. In truth, for me, it is the priest reciting the Eucharistic prayer audibly that makes me feel that he is offering the sacrifice in union with the congregation.
Click to expand...
I hear ya, I just can’t see how it takes aaway from worship unless it isn’t completely understood what is going on and why.

I think a lot of people are connecting the wrong dots. I think people think that this whole ad orientem thing is going to go back to the extraordinary form and they won’t see or hear anything or understand anything
 
CatholicSooner said:
I hear ya, I just can’t see how it takes aaway from worship unless it isn’t completely understood what is going on and why.

I think a lot of people are connecting the wrong dots. I think people think that this whole ad orientem thing is going to go back to the extraordinary form and they won’t see or hear anything or understand anything
Click to expand...
I think it’s a leap to suggest people didn’t understand the meaning of the rituals of the old Latin mass. But hearing the mass and being able to see the priestly actions I believe means a lot to people
 
J_Peterson said:
The answer to the bolded question is The Church and she has spoken. This has very little to do with the folks in the pews because most really don’t care. Your average person has no idea this is even a thing. I can’t imagine it changing my faith one way or the other.
Click to expand...
The paragraph I quoted is the last paragraph of the article. The reference to “who you gonna believe” refers back to an earlier reference to a Chico Marx movie in which he says “who you gonna believe—me or your own eyes?”

The writer’s point is that Catholics can read, and maybe they should read the applicable liturgical texts, issued by the Church, for themselves, rather than assuming that they say something they do not. But then he saves us the trouble by elucidating the liturgical texts themselves.
 
JimG said:
Reading through some of these posts, I was struck by the above quote from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger posted by Ed. It makes the current controversy seem even more striking to me in its immediate response in opposition to what had been an ancient and venerable tradition.

I came across an article in First Things magazine which asks he question “Who’s Afraid of Ad Orientem?” Here is an excerpt:

“These interventions—like other, more vehement responses in some quarters of the blogosphere—leave one with the impression that, as the Catechism says of the death penalty, ad orientem celebration should be “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” Why the lack of a catholic appreciation for legitimate liturgical diversity? No one can truthfully claim that the Ordinary Form prohibits ad orientem celebration. So, who’s afraid of ad orientem worship, and why?”
Click to expand...
I am not sure that the word “afraid” has to do with liturgical diversity. And I say this particularly because Rome’s response was that there was no change coming; which gets back to my prior comment that changes get floated before they are made, and his (the Cardinal"s) comment was seen as an indicator that a change was coming.

Taken in and of itself, the reaction appears more about a potential change of the rubrics than it does of the alternative in the GIRM being there - and factually, not used much at all.

The Cardinal was not saying anything unique; the GIRM makes room for the priest facing either direction. On the other hand, neither should it be presumed that the vast majority of priests and bishops have not read the GIRM, and have not decided between the two, with ad populum being the choice by the vast majority.

Some people do not want ad populum. I disagree with those who say that most people don’t care; I think that most people prefer ad populum, and the reaction reflects that.

As to ancient and long standing traditions, I think the OF speaks loudly to the issue, that most people prefer it in its current form. The growth of the EF appears to have reached stasis, is not likely to go away, and shows little or no signs of greater growth.

Rome said there was no change to the GIRM in the works on the matter. Nothing was done by Rome to prevent parishes from moving from ad populum, and the matter remains with the bishop of each diocese.
 
CatholicSooner said:
Just the Pope? He may be the supreme leader of the Catholic Church, but he isn’t the only leader and doesn’t have all the power and authority.
Click to expand...
The Code of Canon Law

*Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1.** By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them**. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.*

Dicasterial officials’ authority is entirely a derivative authority of the Pope…which he may withdraw or otherwise circumscribe. It is why the authority of governance of the heads of dicasteries is in abeyance when the papacy is vacant, with the exception of the Cardinal Penitentiary whose functions are allowed in law to continue since they are potentially at the service of the dying.
 
CatholicSooner said:
I hear ya, I just can’t see how it takes aaway from worship unless it isn’t completely understood what is going on and why.

I think a lot of people are connecting the wrong dots. I think people think that this whole ad orientem thing is going to go back to the extraordinary form and they won’t see or hear anything or understand anything
Click to expand...
I disagree with that entirely. I’ve been taught some complicated, non-religious things, and had to understand how certain meaningless symbols worked and a lot of them. After doing it for a period of time, I don’t need notes.

Ed
 
Don_Ruggero said:
The Code of Canon Law

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1.** By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them**. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Dicasterial officials’ authority is entirely a derivative authority of the Pope…which he may withdraw or otherwise circumscribe. It is why the authority of governance of the heads of dicasteries is in abeyance when the papacy is vacant, with the exception of the Cardinal Penitentiary whose functions are allowed in law to continue since they are potentially at the service of the dying.
Click to expand...
So you think this means the Pope can do whatever he wants?
 
PatrickKennedy said:
I think it just does change. Have you been? I have to ask because it simply DOES change how can you say it doesn’t
Click to expand...
I have been.

It doesn’t change. Except you see the back of the priest instead of the front.

If you close your eyes, you would not be able to tell the difference b/t the two postures.
 
CatholicSooner said:
I have been.

It doesn’t change. Except you see the back of the priest instead of the front.

If you close your eyes, you would not be able to tell the difference b/t the two postures.
Click to expand...
So as I said you can’t see the priestly actions. You can’t dint say you can because you can’t
 
PatrickKennedy said:
So as I said you can’t see the priestly actions. You can’t dint say you can because you can’t
Click to expand...
I can still see his actions for the most part. What are you missing though? seeing him make the sign of the cross over the consecrated host before lifting them up? You know what is happening. In most churches I have been to, you can’t see everything that is going on anyways unless the alter is lower than the pews

Seems rather self centered to be upset about this and this being the reason for being against a practice that was around for over 1800 years…I guess our generation is more important than others
 
Don_Ruggero said:
What I “think” is meaningless.

The law as written is what the law is.
Click to expand...
So the pope could allow same sex marriage with no recourse? He could marry if he wanted? He could allow women to be priests if he wanted?

If this is true it is a new revelation to me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top