Why do our Bishops ignore him?
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    Why?
  • Daniel Bennett PageDaniel Bennett Page
    Posts: 833
    Pride.
    Duplicity of the people under them in the chanceries.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    Well, all the parishes I've visited in recent months have had crucifixes on the altars. I haven't heard any priests remark on the change, but ... brick by brick.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    Why doesn't he just tell priests to face east like they're supposed to?

    "Note that he, like the Pope, supports eastward-facing celebration where it is appropriate"

    ...um... it's ALWAYS appropriate to face east! What is that supposed to mean?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    This is but one example among many wherein the explicit will of Vatican II and all successive Holy Fathers has been willfully and shamelessly disregarded. A more substantial question is - allowing as how all bishops are directly appointed by the Pope, how is it that we end up with so many who are at odds with him? Does he not know the true colours of his appointees?
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    In a similar vein, these appear to have been "neutered" --- compare them to the official text and see if I am correct:

    neutered 01

    neutered 02
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Maybe he remembers the old days when popes were assassinated about every week in Rome. Now those were the tough times! No wonder there was a papal army. Seriously though, it's all politics. We probably have little idea what it takes to remove a bishop and what a pope has to deal with. I don't think he really has all-encompassing power. There is probably so much more that we cannot even fathom.

    Really, though. Pray for these men who answered God's call to become priests, then bishops. The Church changes slowly but it does change. History proves this. Errors have been corrected in the past and Truth revealed in good time.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Many lay people reading the NLM blog probably have more interest in liturgical norms, customs, and history, sacred music, and Latin than many bishops do; consequently, they have more knowledge of these subjects. A bishop with an M.Ed. degree in religious education probably just does what the conventional wisdom and his diocesan "expert" tell him to do.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    It's just the primary root of all sin rearing its head once again as Daniel pointed out above.

    The father of Lies said it well:

    "Non Serviam"

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_serviam?wasRedirected=true

    it also reminds me of Lucifers proclamation in 1917 through it's oracle of Freemasonry:

    (quote coming soon)

    update: quote embedded in this well written document with scholarly footnotes including references to the quotes St Maximillian Kolbe himself.

    http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/center_review_6_2003_mediatrix.pdf
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    allowing as how all bishops are directly appointed by the Pope, how is it that we end up with so many who are at odds with him? Does he not know the true colours of his appointees?


    That's one downside to having such a huge church with a centralized government. There are probably SO MANY bishops that the Pope cannot hope to personally know about each and every one.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Jam

    He doesn't need to know all. The Church is governed supernaturally by Christ Himself and will deal with all who oppose Him and His Vicar.
  • ChristopherMcCloskey
    Posts: 26
    I think the biggest issue here is that most of today's Bishops were in seminary in the late 60's/early 70's when it seems they were encouraged to ignore Rome and 'do their own thing' (much to the determent of the Liturgy and music). Over the years they have become quite secure in their belief that they know better than Rome and therefore ignore the Pope whenever they choose. However, I think the fact that he 'recommended' the crucifix rather than ordered it, gives them a little wiggle room (on legalistic grounds, if nothing else). Perhaps as the younger, more orthodox priests are made bishops, this too will pass.

    Imagine what they would do if he insisted on Ad Orientem!
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    "Jam

    He doesn't need to know all. The Church is governed supernaturally by Christ Himself and will deal with all who oppose Him and His Vicar."

    I mean, obviously I believe that Christ supernaturally rules the church. But we have a human church gov't too... otherwise, why have bishops at all, and not just random ministers "ordained by the Holy Spirit" like protestants have?

    I still don't understand WHY the Pope doesn't just order Ad Orientem. People weren't supposed to start doing versus populum ANYWAY.
  • Lawrence
    Posts: 123
    Ad orientem posture has been the normative one throughout history, but this does not mean that versus populum has not existed, even back when everything was perfect during the castles and drawbridges era. For the pope to say that everyone must face "liturgical East" would be a distortion of practice, just as saying that all priests must face the people would be. Beware of expediency in the midst of cultural crisis.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    I actually have never heard a good case for the Eucharist being celebrated versus populum EVER being an actual Catholic practice. Well, pre-schism anyway; I have to admit my post-schism Catholic history knowledge is limited.

    The closest argument I've heard concerned the West-facing altars of St. Peter's basilica and churches modeled after it. However, in those places, when the priest reached the Eucharistic prayers, the congregation all faced ad orientem with the priest... so while the priest was technically facing the people, he was really just facing the East, and the people faced East WITH him. The current practice of having the priest and people face each other during the entire Mass is not historical.
Add a Comment