….Further, most priests will say that, once they have offered Holy Mass Ad Orientem, they too find it far easier to celebrate. Mass facing the people facilitates clericalism as the priest becomes the center of attention, leading some priests to take on the role of a ring-master for their liturgical circus. After all, does it make any sense to pray, “To you, therefore, most merciful Father,” staring at an assembly of onlookers? The only complaints I have ever encountered have come from octogenarian left-over hippies; they are the real ones who ought to heed Papa Bergoglio’s assault on “backwardism” in their desire to return to the nuttiness of the 1960s. No, Adelante, as he often presses. Move forward, leave behind the 60s!
Can a bishop mandate which of the three forms of the Penitential Act a priest must use? Which Eucharistic Prayer? That he offer the Sign of Peace? Of course not. Nor does he have the authority to mandate versus populum celebrations.1 As one venerable Jesuit mantra would have it: “I have no obligation to obey what you have no right to command.” Which gets to the heart of the matter….
The sad – and relatively unspoken – part of the whole saga is that episcopal overreach is worsening priestly morale, which is already at a very low ebb. Bishops need to take seriously the wise counsel of Sirach: “Fathers, do not provoke your sons to anger” (6:4). The seemingly endless onslaught on traditional ways of living and doing are driving many clergy and laity into extremist positions. Faithful whom I have known for decades as centrist Catholics have moved very far to the right, thanks to the lunacy promoted at times over the past ten years. And many others have been driven into the waiting and welcoming arms of the Lefebvrists or even sede vacantists….
Full story by Father Peter Stravinskas at Catholic World Report.
That is what we are to this priest? An assembly of onlookers?
I have no words.
” “I have no obligation to obey what you have no right to command.” Which gets to the heart of the matter….” Well Cdl. Cupich feels he has the right and duty to command his priests to face the “onlookers” (with kudos to alright), and to persecute any priest who entertains and acts on a contrary opinion. In the previous thread on Fr. Bus it was argued by some that the priest owed obedience to the cardinal, case closed. As a huge fan of ad orientem, I faulted the cardinal with, and I thank Fr. Stravinskas for the phrase, “episcopal overreach.” Try as I might, I cannot understand the animus toward ad orientem by the princes of the Church, beginning with Francis and extending down to men like Cupich. It is argued that the priest is facing God either way. True enough, and so it should not matter which way the priest faces, theologically. I argue for ad orientem for its symbolic value of the priest with the people leading the people in prayer to God. And if the priest says a better Mass that way, as was Fr. Bus’ testimony, so be it. A happy priest makes glad a congregation, and should make glad his Ordinary. Alas…
They are supposed to follow the General Instruction for the Roman Missal which says to face the people whenever possible.
The Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would be the Vatican entity that you would contact about that.
Priests are not supposed to add or take anything away from the Mass.
Priests are not independent contractors. They are representatives of their Bishop.
If you or they think that they have “overreached, you should contact either the Apostolic Nuncio or the dicastery.
Father Bus was not “persecuted” for ad orientem. His conduct when he did not get what he wanted was the issue.. You can read his letters online.
Dan, I want to address why you do not use a personal prayer experience that violates the Church’s discipline. I know someone who takes communion and teaches others to take communion no matter what (state of grace or mortal sin) because they had a mystical type of experience that convicted them that it was OK. Another person wanted to marry a divorced person and when corrected said, “I am not getting that in prayer.”
They do not really understand what they are doing wrong because they do not understand obedience. It is really just self-will.
In the ’80s and ’90s there were people who wrote in favor of abortion and birth control and women priests. Eventually, and it took a long time, the Vatican and John Paul II issued a document that explained why not.
The Church goes through these things.
If someone petitions the Vatican to decide whether priests have the option of disobeying GIRM at will (kinda think they won’t) or paragraph 299 or if there is a mistaken translation as some people claim, then we will have an answer. Until then, priests should do as it says or as their bishops say.
Seems to me if versus populae was fine for early Christians, it ought to be ok for us. There was certainly no less clericalism in the modern days before VP became more common than there is today. In fact, I’d say there was a lot less. And can a bishop regulate which Eucharistic Prayer to use? Yes I suppose he can. He is in charge of regulating liturgy in his diocese. Bishops regulate liturgical practice in their diocese every day, as they are authorized to do by virtue of their office. BTW, The GIRM prefers celebration facing the people, so he is merely supporting the preferred usage. All of the arguments in this blog post were red herrings. Every single one.
It’s hard to judge whether you know less of Latin (populae? not even close on the keyboard!) or of liturgy. Ideologically unbiased scholars (e.g., Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) have recognized that the standard for early Christians was celebration ad orientem.
the Last Supper was not ad orientem, sir
We are not celebrating the sacred Jewish Passover Seder meal, and Christ’s Last Supper, at Mass. A Mass is completely different– Christ gave us a new Christian religion, too. Ancient Christians always faced East, facing God, for Mass, prayers, and all liturgies. Christ was (and still is) expected to come, at His Second Coming, “from the East.” Christ gave us the Mass, while we, His children, are yet on earth– until His Second Coming, which we yet await…
The Last Supper was the first Mass. You trads don’t know anything.
The discussion here has been among the best I’ve seen on CCD. This has been a good conversation so far, and by treating each other with respect and delving into what is actually in the liturgical books and canon law, we have largely avoided the over-emotional responses from both sides of the debate. What can be a tool for our mutual education, understanding, and unity hasn’t devolved into disharmony and division. Let’s all try to keep things civil and treat each other with respect and dignity, even when we disagree.
It does not matter what any theologian thinks. The Church made its decision. Can it change it’s decision on this? Yes.
Petition the proper authorities if you have a problem with it.
I’m tired of the liturgy wars. just let priests do what they want. Music people too. People will go where they want to to mass. Let God sort it out at the end. I think it will be like the Chiefs kicking the game-winning field goal in the final seconds. Nothing that happened before then really mattered. Just the end. So just let people do what they want. The winning field goal will be kicked by the Holy Spirit in the final seconds, and then we can all celebrate.
“All of the arguments in this blog post were red herrings. Every single one.” Red herring information is by definition information that is misleading or distracting. And yes, a person’s positive experience with ad orientem is trumped by the bishop’s call. But such an experience is neither misleading nor distracting as an argument, a basis, to seek to change the bishop’s mind on the matter. Were I a priest, I would most certainly communicate my desires to my ordinary, and though he may say no, he would not regard my desire as a red herring.
Poor Mother Angelica and her nuns were all very upset with their bishop, and had an extremely painful argument with him, over her and her nuns greatly desiring priests to say Mass ad orientem for them. I felt very badly for poor Mother Angelica and her nuns, over this, and worried about their high stress levels, and health.
People stress themselves out by wanting something. This is why the Lord gave us peace. You do not have to stress. When you ask your superior, or ordinary, for something and they say no, it is God himself saying no (or at least that is how you are supposed to accept it). Be at peace.
People’s self will and their lack of faith is at the heart of almost every upsetment.
There are situations where you know it is not of God, as in sin or abuse. There are usually means to address it. Often times, people don’t want to use those means so they turn to illicit means such as gossip, manipulation, threats, (these too are sins.)
Trust God. Trust Jesus. He is all powerful, all wise, all knowing, all good. He is above all things.
Stop wanting things that He does not want you to have. Stop chasing what God is trying to save you from.
The “episcopal overreach” that Stravinskas writes about in this article (his main argument) is no episcopal overreach at all. The diocesan bishop is totally within his rights to set the liturgical norms in his diocese, including mandating “versus populum” in Masses with the people. Canon Law gives bishops that authority in Canon 838.4: “it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.” And bishops who mandate “versus populum” stand on firm legislative ground because there is nothing inherently and legislatively wrong with “versus populum”. Firstly it is the customary and most popular way that the Catholic Mass is offered in our time. Secondly, even GIRM, as Stravinskas himself points out, taught that building the altar apart from the apse is “most desirable” so that the priest may walk around the altar incensing it AND so that that the priest may offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass “facing the people.” Stravinskas makes a major point of this, thereby shooting his own argument (that of “overreach”) on the foot. It is not bishops who have made the “overreach”, but rather it is writers such as Stravinskas for making such irreverent and disrespectful falsehoods.
I agree with you unless the Vatican says that a priest can choose which I cannot find anything like that.
I remember though when bishops ordered that people had to receive the Eucharist standing and people appealed to Rome and the Vatican said that they had a right to receive kneeling
It can still be decided but as of right now, the bishop needs to be obeyed. Which Father Bus said he would but he said some other things that were not so good.
Can. 838n — §1. The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.
§ 2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
§ 3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.
§ 4 Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.
Canon 838.4 reads in its entirety, “Canon 838 § 4 Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.”
Strange that opening phrase… did canon law foresee limits to a bishop’s competency? Are some bishops less competent than others? How? Could a bishop exceed the limits of his competency? When two bishops disagree on liturgical regulations, is one more competent than the other?
On another note, Stravinskas takes a look at the Latin of the relevant GIRM statement:
“On a certain reading, it would seem that what is “desirable wherever possible” is that Mass be celebrated “facing the people.” However, that interpretation arises from a clunky English translation of the Latin original. In the Latin, the English clause, “which is desirable. . . .” is introduced by the neuter relative pronoun “quod” (which). To what word in the main clause is that pronoun referring? It is “altare seiunctum” (altar separated from the wall). In other words, building an altar away from the wall is desirable. Why? So that the priest can circumambulate the altar for the incensations – and also to celebrate facing the people.
In other words, the rubric is not weighing in on the desirability of Mass “versus populum”; it is weighing in on the issue of an altar’s construction.”
Whether Fr. Stravinskas has shot himself in the foot with irreverent and disrespectful falsehoods I leave to others to decide.
Competence means his legal authority.
If there is a question on the meaning of canon law or GIRM, the Vatican is the one to make the determination.
Thanks for clearing that up. So if an archbishop made one liturgical determination, and an area bishop within the archdiocese wanted a different determination, he would have to follow the archbishop’s directives in any case. Is that right/?
No, they do not have that much power. They preside at installations of bishops and appoint diocesan administrators if one of the diocese has lost a bishop.
I just googled and do not see a twitter for the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
But I did find out that Cardinal Cupich is a member of that Dicastery as of last June.
And with regards to where the priest is facing during Mass, Cupich is certainly within his authority to mandate within his territory “versus populum” thereby making Stravinskas’ main point of “episcopal overreach” false. And “Dan’s” recapitulation of “desirability of versus populum” is moot and a red-herring. I didn’t make that point, but Stravinskas’ quote of GIRM actually contradicts his own claim of “overreach.”
“…“Dan’s” recapitulation… Back to “Dan” I see; alas, you were doing so well before, calling me Dan. I shall miss being called by my name — it was good while it lasted.
ah jon always defend the corrupt hierarchy and the wreckage they have caused in the past 60 years…
“bohemond” is wrong that I “always” defend the Church’s anointed ministers, simply because I do not “always dwell in”, nor “always visit” this blog as often as “bohemond” apparently does. Simply put, I do not “always” intervene to correct every statement I read here of unjust disrespect and irreverence. Remember folks when unjustly criticizing the Church’s anointed ministers (or unjustly criticizing the ministers of other religions) was a major gaffe and a cause for shame? We need to bring that shame back.
Just gonna pray for you.
Being human, a priest might try to draw attention to himself at Mass when people are looking at him. In seminary, the liturgy professor told us to speak in our normal voice, to do what is written in red and to say what is written in black in the Roman missal without additions or alteration. There are times when the priest addresses the assembly directly, just as in the TLM when he turns to them to say “The Lord Be With You: Domiinus vobiscum”, the “pray brethern that my sacrifice and yours, the Orate Fratres, “Behold the Lamb of God”, The blessing, the dismissal. At the times of the prayers directed to God in the collects and canon, some of us have the custom of Benedict XVI to place a cross on the altar in front of us with the corpus toward the priest in order to focus on God to whom we are addressing the prayers for those assembled for the sacrifice.
Is this guy really a Catholic priest? I cannot find a diocese or order for him.
He calls the Pope Papa Bergoglio? That is a red flag?
Every bio is the same and none list a diocese or an order.
I found a bio that said he entered seminary in 1968 but it does not say what seminary.
It says he was ordained in 1977 but does not say where or by whom.
In my hometown, back before VII, the altar at one parish faced north and the altar at the other parish faced west. The altar at the church a few miles up the road faced north, and the one a few miles in the opposite direction faced south. I wonder if the hundreds of thousands of masses celebrated in those churches over the centuries were invalid. Maybe not, because the priest faced away from the people and mostly whispered something in a language no one understood. We just knew we would go to hell if we didn’t show up. We were told that the mass was valid if we showed up before the end of the sermon and could leave at the start of the last gospel.
This is just plan ridiculous! Did Jesus turn his back on the apostles when he celebrated the Last Super with them? Of course not! Are not priests considered alter christus? They are…and so they should celebrate the Holy Mass in the same manner that Our Lord celebrated the Last Super- by facing the congregation!
“If you want to be in the picture, you need to get on this side of the table.”
I know…old joke