MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
As most of you know, the Sacrifice of the Mass is the very center of Roman Catholic theology. It is through the Mass that forgiveness comes to Catholic people, and it is supposed to be an actual demonstration of Christ's infinite work on the cross. Think about the tremendous theological importance of the Mass, and then wonder about this recent Catholic controversy.
All quotes are taken from CHRISTI FIDELIS, a conservative Catholic publication.
Bishop Foley, of Birmingham, Alabama, sent this directive to his priests:
"In churches and shrines, as well as oratories where Mass is open to the public, the priest celebrating the Eucharist at a freestanding altar is to face the people.
"At any Mass that is or will be televised for broadcast or videotaped for public dissemination, the priest is to use a freestanding altar and face the people."
What is the disagreement?
CHRISTIFIDELIS was against and celebration of the "Mass exclusively versus populum." (Facing the people)
Why, you might ask?
" (It) is contrary to the universal law that presumes the ad orientum celebration of certain parts of the Mass, has been observed for thirty continuous years, as required by Canon 26."
(Ad orientum signifies facing the East)
Can you imagine the validity or lawfulness of a religious ritual depending upon what direction the priest faced?
CHRISTIFIDELIS seems very serious about their position on this matter. They feel that Bishop Foley has overstepped his authority.
"The bishop is incorrect when he declares that 'no one may act in this regard without the permission of the bishop.' A lower level legislator would invalidly usurp the authority of the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops were he to exercise the prerogatives reserved to an authority at a higher level. A diocesan bishop is required to moderate the liturgy in his diocese in accord with the norm of law. He may not on his own authority derogate from the prescriptions of the approved liturgical books without provision in the law or a special mandate.
"Bishop Foley declares that a legal custom has been established that Mass at a free standing altar is celebrated facing the people; but the custom of which he speaks seems to attach to an inanimate object, the altar, rather than a community of persons, as required by canon 23.
"Indeed, when a congregation is present, the celebrant is required to face the people for some parts of the Mass. But if the particular legislator intends this posture as the exclusive posture for the entire Mass, then he has invalidly attempted to enact legislation contrary to that of the Supreme Legislator.
"To the new law of the diocese of Birmingham, which is certainly invalid, the bishop has added a penal offense to the catalog of delicts in the universal law and perhaps to the particular law as well. Bishop Foley has made it clear that a violation - not of obedience but a violation of the posture or of the television blackout - renders the offender liable to penalties, even suspension. While this might apply to residential priests, it is questionable that it would apply to visiting presbyters or bishops. Such clerics are usually not granted - nor do they need - faculties of the bishop of Birmingham, so there is nothing to withdraw. Also, there is doubt as to whether a diocesan bishop could penalize a priest not of his jurisdiction.
"Bishop Foley's obvious target, Mother Angelica, has commented on EWTN about the decree with remarkable and commendable restraint. As far as we know, hers has been the only comment made by an affected party. The portion directed to priests obviously does not apply, but she might well become involved with the portion concerning televised Masses.
"One who believes his or her rights have been violated by the legislative decree of a diocesan bishop is always free to appeal to the Holy See. However, canons 1732 - 1739 on recourse against administrative decrees cannot be invoked because the act is legislative rather than administrative. It appears that according to the Apostolic Constitution, Pastor Bonus, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts is competent to determine that diocesan law is not in accord with universal law. Another way in which Bishop Foley's decree could be challenged is by the appeal of a priest who was penalized for disobeying it. An appeal of a penalty immediately suspends its effect (c. 1353), so the priest would not suffer unduly while the appeal ran its course. The defense would be based upon the assumption that one cannot be penalized for violating an invalid decree.
"The matter is now unfolding before our eyes and we must await the outcome."
This hullabaloo about such a matter brings both a smile and a yawn to Bible believing Christians. The administration of our salvation, unlike that of the Roman Mass, depends wholly and entirely upon the position of our Savior - nailed to a cross to bear our sins in His own body. Whether the human medium through whom this message comes faces North, South, East or West - or lies on his back facing the ceiling makes no difference. It is His One Perfect offering that has saved forever those who come to God through His merits.