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.
CatholicSooner said:
It’s for literally like 10 minutes during an hour long service.

He isn’t turning his back on the people. He is turning towards God
Click to expand...
Even more specifically, he and the people are facing the same direction, he is no more facing away from the people than an officer who is leading a charge is facing away from his troops.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

They are all going in the same spiritual direction, and the priest is leading the way 👍
 
Brendan said:
Rome already has

In regards to Bishop Foley’s attempt to prohibit the priests of EWTN from celebrating Mass ad orientum. This was the letter faxed to Bishop Foley and to EWTN

adoremus.org/NewLiturgy9102K.html
Click to expand...
The Vatican did support Bishop Foley on Masses celebrated on TV and in his diocesan parishes.

As you’ll see, the daily Masses celebrated on TV from the EWTN studio, the priests is facing the people. The Masses celebrated at the monastery, are Ad Orientum per the religious order.

We’ve been through this before, but, Religious Orders are able to set the legitimate norms according to their provincial, who reports directly to the Pope.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The Vatican did support Bishop Foley on Masses celebrated on TV and in his diocesan parishes.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Vatican did state that the bishop could set the options for Masses in his diocese that are televised, but that is not what we are talking about here. Per the CDWDS, a bishop cannot put in a blanket restriction on ad orientum Masses.
As you’ll see, the daily Masses celebrated on TV from the EWTN studio, the priests is facing the people. The Masses celebrated at the monastery, are Ad Orientum per the religious order.
Click to expand...
We’ve been through this before, but, Religious Orders are able to set the legitimate norms according to their provincial, who reports directly to the Pope.
Click to expand...
Jim
Click to expand...
Yes, but questions about the rights of religious orders are decided upon by the Congregation for Religions., not the CDWDS. This question was brought to the CDWDS because it dealt with the Roman Missal in general

That was made clear in the reply from the CDWDS
it must respectfully ask that Your Excellency withdraw this Decree because it is contrary to the ius commune with regard to liturgical matters. "
Click to expand...
Note that Rome instructed the decree be withdrawn, not that the decree did not apply to religious orders. Secondly note that the Bishop’s decree was contrary to the ius commune of the liturgical law. That is a canonical term that means ‘the general understanding’ or ‘the common understanding’

The bishops decree was not a violation of the rights of the religious orders, but a violation of the common understanding of the liturgical law itself.
 
Brendan said:
Yes, the Vatican did state that the bishop could set the options for Masses in his diocese that are televised, but that is not what we are talking about here. Per the CDWDS, a bishop cannot put in a blanket restriction on ad orientum Masses.

Yes, but questions about the rights of religious orders are decided upon by the Congregation for Religions., not the CDWDS. This question was brought to the CDWDS because it dealt with the Roman Missal in general

That was made clear in the reply from the CDWDS

.
Click to expand...
Rome made it clear that the Bishop’s have authority over the parishes under their control, and Catholic Masses broadcasts from their Dioceses, but not over religious orders, except for those not having papal authority. I’ve seen a local Bishop order a religious order to close and sell its assets and he had the authority to do so, because they were approved by the previous Bishop, but they did not have Papal Authority…

The Conference of Bishops and the Local Bishops set the norms for their dioceses providing they are lawful. In the case of having free standing altars and the priest facing the people, the Bishop does have the authority to set this as the norm for his dioceses.

Jim
 
For those not bothering to read the second article presented in this thread, this part should be taken note of.
It is therefore good to recall that in the General Order of the Roman Missale (Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani), that contains the norms relating to the Eucharistic celebration and (which) are still fully in force, No. 299 states that “the altar is built separated from the wall, so as to be able to move around it easily and to celebrate looking towards the people, which thing is convenient to realize wherever possible. The altar is to be place in a way so as to really constitute the center towards which the attention of the people spontaneously converges.”
Click to expand...
The Bishops are following Vatican II Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy and the GIRM by setting the norms of the priest facing the people.

Religious Orders which have Papal Authority, have exemptions from the local Bishop and Conference of Bishops, but the Provincial of the Order must have approval before doing something contrary to the approved constitutions set by Vatican II.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
For those not bothering to read the second article presented in this thread, this part should be taken note of.

The Bishops are following Vatican II Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy and the GIRM by setting the norms of the priest facing the people.

Religious Orders which have Papal Authority, have exemptions from the local Bishop and Conference of Bishops, but the Provincial of the Order must have approval before doing something contrary to the approved constitutions set by Vatican II.

Jim
Click to expand...
This quote has been addressed numerous times. Including it’s faulty interpretation and translation that you are using
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The Bishops are following Vatican II Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy and the GIRM by setting the norms of the priest facing the people.
Click to expand...
The GIRM is promulgated by the CDWDS, as such it is they that are they that are the final interpreters under Canon 16.

That is why appeals of a local ordinanaries decisions in regards to matters of the GIRM go to the CDWDS. The interpreations of the GRIM by the CDWDS have the force of law.

Thus a bishop cannot attempt to define a norm in a way that differs from the interpretation given my the CDWDS.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Faulty interpretation ?

The Vatican did the interpretation, not me.

Jim
Click to expand...
Not infallible.

For example, somewhere on the Vatican site, “colere” is translated as “worship” and gives the impression that we are supposed to worship Mary. Do you agree with that? More importantly do you see how translations can alter one’s faith?
 
I am merely saying that for me I feel more included in the Mass with the priest facing towards the congregation. I was a young altar boy when the mass changed so I remember both I do not object to is revisiting our traditions. I think it’s not as important as a reverent celebration of the mass in whatever position
 
ProVobis said:
Not infallible.

For example, somewhere on the Vatican site, “colere” is translated as “worship” and gives the impression that we are supposed to worship Mary. Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...
Not sure of what your point is, but nothing is going to change per the OP article and subsequent articles.

I’m happy attending Mass with the priest facing the people where we can see the Consecration, rather than it being blocked from view by the priest with his back to us.

Jim
 
PatrickKennedy said:
I am merely saying that for me I feel more included in the Mass with the priest facing towards the congregation. I was a young altar boy when the mass changed so I remember both I do not object to is revisiting our traditions. I think it’s not as important as a reverent celebration of the mass in whatever position
Click to expand...
your focus shouldn’t even be on the priest during the parts of the mass that ad orientem would affect.

This movement isn’t going to revert everythign back to where it was pre vatican 2
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Not sure of what your point is, but nothing is going to change per the OP article and subsequent articles.

I’m happy attending Mass with the priest facing the people where we can see the Consecration, rather than it being blocked from view by the priest with his back to us.

Jim
Click to expand...
You can clearly see the consecration now? I can see when the body and blood is raised up but besides that, there is very little to see and you should still be able to see that ad orientum
 
the altar is built separated from the wall, so as to be able to move around it easily and to celebrate looking towards the people, which thing is convenient to realize wherever possible
Click to expand...
As an FYI, the part that is “convenient to realize wherever possible” is that the altar be built away from the wall.

Here is the correct interpretation from Rome
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing 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:
Click to expand...
Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.
Click to expand...
The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem comes from English, which considers word order to be important, while it is far less so in Latin,

The definitive legal source in Roman Catholicism is always the Latin

here is the text in Latin

Altare *maius *exstruatur *a *pariete *seiunctum, *ut *facile *circumiri *et *in *eo *celebratio *versus *populum *peragi possit, *quod *expedit *ubicumque *possibile *si

Now the commentary pause of ut facile…does not change the sentence modifier of 'quod expit…( which is useful wherever it is possible).

Think of the ‘ut’ as an interlineal comment, like we use parens today

The altar should be built apart from the wall,(so that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people), wherever possible.

The part that is useful wherever possible is the main clause, that the altar should be build away from the wall. The reason given is that the altar should be build away from the wall is that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out. GIRM 299 cannot be considered to state that there is a preference for the Mass to be celebrated facing towards the people, rather that the preference is that the altar be build away from the wall. And even then, as the responsum from the CDWDS indicated, that itself is not a command, but depends on local conditions.
 
Brendan said:
As an FYI, the part that is “convenient to realize wherever possible” is that the altar be built away from the wall.

Here is the correct interpretation from Rome

Part of the problem comes from English, which considers word order to be important, while it is far less so in Latin,

The definitive legal source in Roman Catholicism is always the Latin

here is the text in Latin

Altare *maius *exstruatur *a *pariete *seiunctum, *ut *facile *circumiri *et *in *eo *celebratio *versus *populum *peragi possit, *quod *expedit *ubicumque *possibile *si

Now the commentary pause of ut facile…does not change the sentence modifier of 'quod expit…( which is useful wherever it is possible).

Think of the ‘ut’ as an interlineal comment, like we use parens today

The altar should be built apart from the wall,(so that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people), wherever possible.

The part that is useful wherever possible is the main clause, that the altar should be build away from the wall. The reason given is that the altar should be build away from the wall is that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out. GIRM 299 cannot be considered to state that there is a preference for the Mass to be celebrated facing towards the people, rather that the preference is that the altar be build away from the wall. And even then, as the responsum from the CDWDS indicated, that itself is not a command, but depends on local conditions.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
CatholicSooner said:
You can clearly see the consecration now? I can see when the body and blood is raised up but besides that, there is very little to see and you should still be able to see that ad orientum
Click to expand...
The Consecrated Host isn’t suppose to be raised above the head of Christ, the celebrant.

The practice of the celebrant raising the host high above his head, goes back to the Middle Ages, where the poor who couldn’t afford seats up front, had to stand or sit on the floor in the back of the Church and could not see the Eucharist. The celebrant,raised the consecrated host in order for everyone to see it. A course in liturgical history helps understand how the Mass evolved to what we have today.

However, there is more to the consecration than the final consecrated host and the priest facing the people is more conducive for people to view than with his back, Just a fact of logistics.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The Consecrated Host isn’t suppose to be raised above the head of Christ, the celebrant.

The practice of the celebrant raising the host high above his head, goes back to the Middle Ages, where the poor who couldn’t afford seats up front, had to stand or sit on the floor in the back of the Church and could not see the Eucharist. The celebrant,raised the consecrated host in order for everyone to see it. A course in liturgical history helps understand how the Mass evolved to what we have today.

However, there is more to the consecration than the final consecrated host and the priest facing the people is more conducive for people to view than with his back, Just a fact of logistics.

Jim
Click to expand...
umm ok.

I think I’m done from this b/c we aren’t getting anywhere. I never said high above his head and you never even answered my questions. just deflected
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top