I've been wondering what their argument for versus populum is.
Scripture doesn't specify (unless you look really hard at how the Jews worshipped, then it's mono-directional). Tradition is ubiquitous for ad orientem. The hierarchy has directed the compromise Mass.
At least one of the priests seems to think the reason he's not a rebel priest…
I've been wondering what their argument for versus populum is.
Scripture doesn't specify (unless you look really hard at how the Jews worshipped, then it's mono-directional). Tradition is ubiquitous for ad orientem. The hierarchy has directed the compromise Mass.
At least one of the priests seems to think the reason he's not a rebel priest is that people are supporting him. I didn't think there were many rebellions involving only a single individual with no support.
If you're going to argue with the hierarchy (which is occasionally a good idea), you should be doing it on the basis of Scripture and Tradition, not on the basis of 'I want' and 'they want it too'.
I've been wondering what their argument for versus populum is.
Scripture doesn't specify (unless you look really hard at how the Jews worshipped, then it's mono-directional). Tradition is ubiquitous for ad orientem. The hierarchy has directed the compromise Mass.
At least one of the priests seems to think the reason he's not a rebel priest is that people are supporting him. I didn't think there were many rebellions involving only a single individual with no support.
If you're going to argue with the hierarchy (which is occasionally a good idea), you should be doing it on the basis of Scripture and Tradition, not on the basis of 'I want' and 'they want it too'.