Boise bishop bans ‘ad orientem’ posture in ‘ordinary form’ Masses

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I guess some priest were mixing Extraordinary form practices with the Ordinary form causing confusion.

Boise bishop bans 'ad orientem' posture in 'ordinary form' Masses

I wish someone in the Catholic world was gathering data on what Masses were being streamed. I have a hunch most people are tuning into Latin Masses, part of that might be wider availability (tons of FSSP and ICKSP parishes stream) but also this is kind of an opportunity to ‘experience’ one if you otherwise can’t.

Nevertheless, that data would show people are more interested in that than what Church hierarchs think they like.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I guess some priest were mixing Extraordinary form practices with the Ordinary form causing confusion.

Boise bishop bans 'ad orientem' posture in 'ordinary form' Masses
The ordinary form does not require anti-ad-orientem. Either direction is acceptable in the ordinary form. Having seen ad orientem in the ordinary form in English, ad orientem in the ordinary form in Latin, ad orientem in the extraordinary form, and ad orientem in the Anglican Ordinariate, I VASTLY prefer it. I campaign for it, I want it. And it is a simple as the priest standing on the other side of the altar. It is NOT mixing of forms. It doesn't require permission of the bishop to do that. Except now, in the diocese of Boise, a priest in obedience to his bishop, is not allowed to do something normally allowed by the form of the rite itself.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gnarwhal
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The ordinary form does not require anti-ad-orientem. Either direction is acceptable in the ordinary form. Having seen ad orientem in the ordinary form in English, ad orientem in the ordinary form in Latin, ad orientem in the extraordinary form, and ad orientem in the Anglican Ordinariate, I VASTLY prefer it. I campaign for it, I want it. And it is a simple as the priest standing on the other side of the altar. It is NOT mixing of forms. It doesn't require permission of the bishop to do that. Except now, in the diocese of Boise, a priest in obedience to his bishop, is not allowed to do something normally allowed by the form of the rite itself.

It's such a vast difference in the psychology of the Mass ad orientem vs. ad populum. Highly prefer the former over the latter, in the latter it so easily devolves into entertainment.

Speaking of lousy Bishops I heard earlier that the Bishop of Lubbock banned confession. I guess more and more Bishops are banning all sacraments, not just Mass. Thank God for those holy priests who, like their predecessors during the plague centuries ago, risked death to bring the sacraments to the faithful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,727.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The bishop wrote that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is “unambivalent” about liturgical orientation, and “makes it plain that the universal Church envisions the priest presiding at Mass facing the people.”
Once again, Eastern Catholics get swept under the rug.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Anhelyna
Upvote 0

Julian of Norwich

English Catholic
Nov 10, 2018
485
365
Pacific Northwest
✟81,981.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Upvote 0

Hamlet7768

World's Second-Worst Polemicist
Nov 2, 2013
89
56
United States of America
✟22,257.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I may be remembering wrong, but didn't Pope Benedict XVI say he was hoping that the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form would (organically) feed each other?

He did. Ad Orientem is one of those ways an understanding of the EF can enhance the OF. Abp Sample has said every priest should at least know the Traditional Mass, so that they understand the roots of the OF.

That said, rubrics are rubrics. The priest isn't allowed to mix things, though orientation is perfectly licit to change and I question whether the bishop has the authority to ban it—especially with such a hilariously flimsy justification that ignores every other Rite in the Catholic Church. I believe only the Maronites celebrate liturgy facing the people, and that due to heavy Latinisation.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Once again, Eastern Catholics get swept under the rug.
Nothing about this bishop's ruling chnges anything for eastern Catholics AT ALL. Nor does it change anything for the traditional Latin Mass AT ALL. It ONLY forbids one thing, the orientation of the priest in the novis ordo rite. Your comment is misplaced.

Edit: It also seems to ban use of communion rails for communion, although this bishop even knows he cannot outright ban a person from kneeling down on the floor to receive communion.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Gnarwhal
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
He did. Ad Orientem is one of those ways an understanding of the EF can enhance the OF. Abp Sample has said every priest should at least know the Traditional Mass, so that they understand the roots of the OF.

That said, rubrics are rubrics. The priest isn't allowed to mix things, though orientation is perfectly licit to change and I question whether the bishop has the authority to ban it—especially with such a hilariously flimsy justification that ignores every other Rite in the Catholic Church. I believe only the Maronites celebrate liturgy facing the people, and that due to heavy Latinisation.
I think he may have the authority, just as he may have the authority to compell his priests to celebrate mass on one foot. But the GIRM gives the priest the freedom to face either way. If he pretends the GIRM compells one orientation he is sadly mistaken. But I think he has the authority to force his mistake on his priests if it is not actually forcing sin but only bad practice.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hamlet7768

World's Second-Worst Polemicist
Nov 2, 2013
89
56
United States of America
✟22,257.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nothing about this bishop's ruling chnges anything for eastern Catholics AT ALL. Nor does it change anything for the traditional Latin Mass AT ALL. It ONLY forbids one thing, the orientation of the priest in the novis ordo rite. Your comment is misplaced.

The comment was referring to the bishop's bizarre comment that the "universal Church" favours celebrating ad populum. Almost all of the Eastern Rites celebrate ad orientem, similarly to the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Anhelyna
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The comment was referring to the bishop's bizarre comment that the "universal Church" favours celebrating ad populum. Almost all of the Eastern Rites celebrate ad orientem, similarly to the Traditional Latin Mass.
That bishop is talking nonsense all around. Rather mistaken nonsense to boot. He has authority only over his own little diocese anyhow.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hamlet7768
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Fr. Z builds on PETER KWASNIEWSKI's article, showing bishop Christiansen as having gotten some things wrong.

@BoiseBishop goes to the liturgical zoo. Attempts to forbid "ad orientem" worship, kneeling for Communion, etc.

I finally put two and two together, realizing the bishop of Boise is the former bishop of Superior WI. And I had a meeting with him once, some years ago. I was trying to get his permission to build a Catholic high school in his diocese. We had interest, we had land, we had a BIG donor. His predecessor postponed the decision, and he turned it down. Only recently the high school is finally coming to fruition, but in the diocese on the other side of the river, as a Chestertion Academy. So the bishop who turned down the high school is the one who forbids ad orientem. And, as it turns out also forbids communion rails.
 
Upvote 0