mostly based, I still think it's weird to require permission for ad orientem with the current liturgical books when this is not something Pope Francis or the DDW ever mentioned. nor is it a concrete manifestation of acceptance of Vatican II, since Vatican II did not make the decision to introduce versus populum. no one should think that …
mostly based, I still think it's weird to require permission for ad orientem with the current liturgical books when this is not something Pope Francis or the DDW ever mentioned. nor is it a concrete manifestation of acceptance of Vatican II, since Vatican II did not make the decision to introduce versus populum. no one should think that versus populum is heretical or evil considering its almost universal acceptance in the Church, but the liturgical books do not require it or even consider it preferable.
I think that ad orientem is KIND OF like communion on the tongue. Salty episcopoi can think they have the authority to outlaw it when they actually don’t.
I think they actually probably do have the authority to ban both of those things (the latter being confirmed by Rome during the pandemic). It's just wrong to do it for bad reasons.
Agreed, as the pandemic has shown us, Rome fully backs Bishops exercising their authority as moderators of the liturgy even up to reception the manner in which one communicates
True, and this has interesting implications for the pendulum-swing backlash that I expect to occur sometime after I am no longer around to care. Since they will not be around either, I assume that setting precedents is not a thing that keeps them up at night.
Lets not be too constrained by form as opposed to substance regarding Pope Francis never "mentioning it". Yes not in TC or as part of TC but he was loud and clear when Cardinal Sarah "exhorted" (not mandated) Priests to start using it a few years ago. A public smackdown of Cardinal Sarah followed in about a New York minute. Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Gregory got the message even if you didn't.
it would be very odd for Pope Francis' message to be "ban ad orientem" when he has celebrated ad orientem himself on a not insignificant number of occasions. leaving aside those celebrations in St Peter's and elsewhere which are simultaneously ad orientem and versus populum, he has not demonstrated himself to be against the practice. in light of that I don't understand the "incident" with Cardinal Sarah in the same way that you do. Francis isn't theologically committed to viewing ad orientem as preferable in the way Pope Emeritus Benedict is, but neither is he theologically committed to opposing it. and even Benedict thought that it was not pastorally feasible to widely reintroduce ad orientem, but instead emphasized the crucifix on the altar so that the celebration is focused on Christ; something that Francis has not reversed.
Perhaps not. But the swiftness and the vehemence with which the Holy See refuted Cardinal Sarah - who again did not Mandate but only exhorted - was perceived by many as a hostility of this pontificate towards that practice as manifesting an a unacceptable “reform of the reform “ mindset . And Pope Francis did explicitly reject the idea of “reform of the reform”. So It may only be a perception of Pope Francis’ view rather than the reality of his view . But it is a perception that I believe both Cardinals Cupich and Gregory have. That thesis has explanatory power for their actions that , as you admit, leave you puzzled. And their perception will be reinforced if , as I am very sure, their general restriction on Ad Orientem will bring no response from the Holy See over the next year . it is probable that this hostility is attributable to Grillo and Pope Francis was advised and deferred to him in the Sarah affair despite PF’s own less hostile view if you are correct .
To also add Cardinal Cupich and Gregory are specifically tasked by Pope Francis to reform the American episcopate, and coordinate to such an extent that Gregory simply lifted a paragraph from Cupich's restrictions on the Latin Mass. The thesis Pope Francis wants to discourage ad orientem worship is more probable than not.
One more comment Joseph. The Syro Malabar liturgy controversy has made it clear to me that Pope Francis and his liturgical advisors don’t oppose Ad Orientem per se. Rather whatever is the majority orientation since V2 is what they appear to favor within a Rite as a general rule and only subject to very special exceptions . And they appear to be somewhat immovable in this “principle”. That appears to be the only principle that can explain both situations . Although if they want to keep pursuing and expanding inculturation exceptions like the Zaire exception within the Latin rite (one could also look to the personal ordinariate as an exception), the exception will start to swallow this rule and one wonders why the micro cultures of Ernakulam in India and the TLM communities in the Latin Rite wouldn’t “count” upon that development
mostly based, I still think it's weird to require permission for ad orientem with the current liturgical books when this is not something Pope Francis or the DDW ever mentioned. nor is it a concrete manifestation of acceptance of Vatican II, since Vatican II did not make the decision to introduce versus populum. no one should think that versus populum is heretical or evil considering its almost universal acceptance in the Church, but the liturgical books do not require it or even consider it preferable.
I think that ad orientem is KIND OF like communion on the tongue. Salty episcopoi can think they have the authority to outlaw it when they actually don’t.
I think they actually probably do have the authority to ban both of those things (the latter being confirmed by Rome during the pandemic). It's just wrong to do it for bad reasons.
Agreed, as the pandemic has shown us, Rome fully backs Bishops exercising their authority as moderators of the liturgy even up to reception the manner in which one communicates
True, and this has interesting implications for the pendulum-swing backlash that I expect to occur sometime after I am no longer around to care. Since they will not be around either, I assume that setting precedents is not a thing that keeps them up at night.
Lets not be too constrained by form as opposed to substance regarding Pope Francis never "mentioning it". Yes not in TC or as part of TC but he was loud and clear when Cardinal Sarah "exhorted" (not mandated) Priests to start using it a few years ago. A public smackdown of Cardinal Sarah followed in about a New York minute. Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Gregory got the message even if you didn't.
it would be very odd for Pope Francis' message to be "ban ad orientem" when he has celebrated ad orientem himself on a not insignificant number of occasions. leaving aside those celebrations in St Peter's and elsewhere which are simultaneously ad orientem and versus populum, he has not demonstrated himself to be against the practice. in light of that I don't understand the "incident" with Cardinal Sarah in the same way that you do. Francis isn't theologically committed to viewing ad orientem as preferable in the way Pope Emeritus Benedict is, but neither is he theologically committed to opposing it. and even Benedict thought that it was not pastorally feasible to widely reintroduce ad orientem, but instead emphasized the crucifix on the altar so that the celebration is focused on Christ; something that Francis has not reversed.
Perhaps not. But the swiftness and the vehemence with which the Holy See refuted Cardinal Sarah - who again did not Mandate but only exhorted - was perceived by many as a hostility of this pontificate towards that practice as manifesting an a unacceptable “reform of the reform “ mindset . And Pope Francis did explicitly reject the idea of “reform of the reform”. So It may only be a perception of Pope Francis’ view rather than the reality of his view . But it is a perception that I believe both Cardinals Cupich and Gregory have. That thesis has explanatory power for their actions that , as you admit, leave you puzzled. And their perception will be reinforced if , as I am very sure, their general restriction on Ad Orientem will bring no response from the Holy See over the next year . it is probable that this hostility is attributable to Grillo and Pope Francis was advised and deferred to him in the Sarah affair despite PF’s own less hostile view if you are correct .
To also add Cardinal Cupich and Gregory are specifically tasked by Pope Francis to reform the American episcopate, and coordinate to such an extent that Gregory simply lifted a paragraph from Cupich's restrictions on the Latin Mass. The thesis Pope Francis wants to discourage ad orientem worship is more probable than not.
One more comment Joseph. The Syro Malabar liturgy controversy has made it clear to me that Pope Francis and his liturgical advisors don’t oppose Ad Orientem per se. Rather whatever is the majority orientation since V2 is what they appear to favor within a Rite as a general rule and only subject to very special exceptions . And they appear to be somewhat immovable in this “principle”. That appears to be the only principle that can explain both situations . Although if they want to keep pursuing and expanding inculturation exceptions like the Zaire exception within the Latin rite (one could also look to the personal ordinariate as an exception), the exception will start to swallow this rule and one wonders why the micro cultures of Ernakulam in India and the TLM communities in the Latin Rite wouldn’t “count” upon that development