A US bishop “expects”, but doesn’t command, that Mass be said “facing the people”

If email were rain, I’d be soaked.  I was sent an image of a letter sent by Bp. Anthony Taylor of Little Rock, Arkansas, to priests.  In this letter, the Bishop says that he “expects” that Mass always be celebrated “facing the people”.

CCWatershed has a good summary of this sad new development and an image of the letter with the relevant text highlighted.

Here’s the problem.

Bp. Taylor cites a letter of 12 July 2016 from the head the USCCB’s liturgy committee, Bp. Serratelli, in the wake of Card. Sarah’s personal plea to priests to say Mass ad orientem. Once again, however, Serratelli cited the English MISTRANSLATION of GIRM 299, incorrectly asserting that 299 says that it is preferable that Mass be celebrated “facing the people”.  That is NOT what 299 says.

Based on this error, Bp. Taylor then states that he “expects” that the Ordinary Form will be “facing the people”.

He “expects” that.  He can’t mandate or command that.  Why?

On 10 April 2000, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued an official response about this matter:

This dicastery wishes to state that Holy Mass may be celebrated versus populum or versus apsidem. Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct.
There is no preference expressed in the liturgical legislation for either position. As both positions enjoy the favor of law, the legislation may not be invoked to say that one position or the other accords more closely with the mind of the Church.

In a nutshell, bishops can’t overrule universal laws, including rubrics.

That last part is an overstatement, by the way: the rubrics of the Mass in Latin in the Missale Romanum clearly indicate that at times the priest turns away from the altar to face the people and then turns back to the altar.  Nevertheless, the Congregation is clear.  And Bp. Serratelli’s letter goes on to acknowledge this fact (not quoted here).

I would only add that it seems that in 2012 Bp. Taylor repressed a TLM community by placing myriad conditions for the celebration of the older form of Mass.  In 2011 the document Universae Ecclesiae from the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, would clarify.  Too late.  More on that HERE.  To be fair, right now in N. Little Rock, the FSSP have a toe hold at a parish, St. Patrick’s. It is not their own church, but they have some use of it for early daily Mass. Also, confessions are heard for 30 minutes before each Mass.  What a great service to that parish from these good FSSP priests.

Back at CCWatershed, there is a note at the end which I cordially and sincerely endorse, to wit (my emphases):

Some have already ascribed bad intentions to Bishop Taylor, but I disagree. I suspect he sent his letter without knowing the CDW had specifically said the diocesan bishop cannot outlaw “ad orientem.” I believe that once Bishop Taylor becomes aware of that statement, he will issue a retraction. Furthermore, I strongly suspect Bishop Serratelli will retract his letter when the correct translation of paragraph 299 is brought to his attention.

To help everyone involved, let’s review 299. Again.

Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.

… And now for the correct translation…

The altar should be built separated from the wall, which [namely, the separation of the altar from the wall] is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be walked around and (so that) celebration towards the people can be carried out at it. 

For those who make the rookie mistake of plodding along in Latin word for word, as if that’s how Latin works, let’s rearrange 299 to make it easier:

Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit.

Let’s make it more visual yet.  To what does that quod refer?

16_07_17_299_arrow

The relative pronoun quod refers back to the whole first part.    The ut clause in the middle (which creates a messy, but still readable sentence if you don’t fall into the rookie trap of reading Latin word for word in order) adds some additional information about how far away from the wall the altar should be built. It is a vast stretch to imagine that that quod refers to the infinitives in the ut clause (circumiri… peragi).  It is also a vast stretch to force quod to be a conjunction (therefore without gender or number).  No, the quod, in its role as a relative pronoun, refers most naturally and logically to the main clause.

BTW, Fr. Reginald Foster, the long-time Latinist to Popes, agrees with me.

Fr. John Hunwicke, now of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in England, taught Classical Languages for decades. HE wrote in a Guest Editorial in 2001 in Sacred Music:

Paragraph 299 says:

The High Altar [not, be it observed, every altar] should be constructed away from the wall, so that the option is open [possit] of walking easily around it and using it for Mass facing the people. This [i.e., having the altar free-standing so that the options are open] is desirable wherever possible.

GIRM continues – see paragraph 277 – to accept that there will be churches where keeping the options open in this way is not “possible.” And notice that according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, ubicumque means only wherever. [not “everywhere”]
You rightly point out that the new GIRM repeats the instruction that, at certain points, the priest (or deacon) must be “turned to the people” (versus ad populum), clearly implying that he may lawfully be turned away from them at other times. You could have mentioned that these are not merely careless repetitions from earlier versions of the GIRM; I have noticed three places (Paragraphs 154, 181, 195) where the phrase is now added to
the text of the Editio typica prima, and these paragraphs occur in the description of a normal Sunday community Mass, celebrated perhaps with a deacon.
Incidentally, [NB] I suspect that a redaction critic, asked why the quod … clause has been added, might surmise that the addition was intended to emphasize the need for flexibility in the placing of the altar (it’s a good idea [expedit] to have a free-standing altar where this doesn’t cause too much trouble), rather than to discourage ad orientem.

Which is surely why this paragraph is mistranslated so often!

Elsewhere, Fr. Richard Cipolla, whom is no Latin slouch himself – an understatement – wrote:

That famous “quod” that introduces the relative clause cannot possibly refer to the celebration of Mass versus populum.  The English translation has been faulty from the beginning, or rather, from when that clause was added.  In addition the Congregation for Divine Worship in September 2000 rejected the interpretation that 299 made a free -standing altar obligatory and therefore versum populum obligatory.

It is clear from the Latin of the GIRM and the rubrics in the Ordo Missae that ad orientem worship is NOT to be, indeed cannot be, excluded.  It’s RIGHT THERE in the book.

It is clear that, according to the Latin of the GIRM and the rubrics in the Ordo Missae that versus populum is also NOT to be, indeed cannot be, excluded.  Again, check the book.

Bishops cannot forbid ad orientem worship.  They can torture priests who say Mass ad orientem in a thousand ways.  But that would be abuse of power.

The linguistic situation is pretty clear.  The history of ad orientem worship is not to be denied.  The legal/juridical/rubrical dimension is not really that complicated (if you are honest about it and have the correct information).

That said, what we have to do now is go deeper into the theology of the two manners of “orienting” Mass.

If we say that, theologically Holy Mass is to be “towards the Lord”, which of those positions (ad orientem versus or versus ad populum) will more fully manifest and also more fully facilitate an experience of Mass as being truly offered “towards the Lord“?

Friends, Card. Sarah’s personal invitation, the Sarah Appeal™, to priests was a turning point. His ad orientem appeal is a catalyst to set in motion significant change.  Each priest who takes up Card. Sarah’s catalytic call will in turn become a catalyst wherever he serves.  The way a priest says Mass produces knock-on effects in congregations.  Hence, those who support the Cardinal Sarah’s proposal are going to be persecuted.  Pray for your priests and bishops.  Pray that their minds and hearts be opened and that their actions reflect a loving balance of prudence and courage.

And, please, tell the TRUTH about 299.

Qui habet aures audiendi audiat!

Please share!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, The Coming Storm, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to A US bishop “expects”, but doesn’t command, that Mass be said “facing the people”

  1. billy15 says:

    An excellent, and explanatory post, for which I’m grateful.

    I have an honest question though…

    As far as I know, obedience to one’s bishop is very important, be the person of the laity or a parish priest. Since that letter from the USCCB says that the decision to say the Mass ad orientem should “always be made with the supervision and guidance of the local bishop”… what is your average parish priest to do if, after talking with the local bishop, he is guided by said bishop to NOT offer the Mass ad orientem. Better yet, he is forbidden to do so. It’s clear that the bishop can’t do that as was written in the post above. But in this case, would it be better for the parish priest to remain subordinate to his superior and obey his Ordinary’s command, “bearing wrongs patiently”, as it were? That way there would be no scandal in the parish priest disobeying his bishop? Because the other option would be to defy his bishop, even though the parish priest is seemingly, and technically, in the right to offer Mass ad orientem.

    I just feel like many parish priests’ hands are tied, and I feel like virtually no priests I know will even consider getting “supervision or guidance” from their respective bishops. I just wonder how the parish priests that do want to implement the “Sarah Appeal” will proceed.

    Priests, I do not envy your positions, but you are all in my prayers.

  2. Cincinnati Priest says:

    If you look closely at the scan of +ABT’s letter, you will notice that he does not even spell “ad orientem” correctly.

    If that sloppiness is a sign of the lack of due diligence with which he investigated the matter before making the pronouncement, that is a bit disturbing.

  3. Matt R says:

    Although Fr. Hunwicke, as a Latin Rite priest, chooses freely to use the TLM as is his choice, his proper missal is Divine Worship: the Missal, but His Excellency fails to address that, even though ad orientem is normative and versus populum the exception in the Ordinariate.

    Where did Fr. Cipolla’s remarks originate?

    Also, two of my favorite priests plus a quotation from Sacred Music. Winning.

  4. The Sarah Appeal:

    #blackcardinalsmatter

    [Well done.]

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  5. TNCath says:

    This was a very “low rent” response on the part of Bishop Taylor, and, for that matter, Bishop Serratelli as well. The inability for so-called Latinists of the Church to accurately interpret texts…Oh wait a minute? Didn’t we have them same problems back in the 1970’s with the translation of the Missal? Hmmmm! Lex orandi, lex credendi strikes again!

  6. comedyeye says:

    If a bishop “expects” his priests to do something a certain way then are they not obligated to do so
    because of their promise of obedience to him? If a bishop’s directive conflicts with Church law
    (think Canon 915) which is the priest obligated to obey?

    [That, friend, is the $64 Question.]

  7. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    It hurts me that this is still such a contentious issue.

    That modernist mitres continue to feel the need to uncharitably, unmercifully, unpastorally, uninclusively, unrelativistically, dogmatically demand obligatory uniformity in horizontally-oriented toward-man-centered worship is maddening.

    Have we made such little progress?

    That this issue elicits such vocal positional statements by bishops…while issues like abortion, massive global apostasy, homosexual/gender ideology laws, etc, elicit only silence should bring sober reflection to every Catholic of any spiritual sense whatsoever.

  8. sahn105 says:

    That’s really too bad because Bishop Serratelli says the Old Mass and I presumed would be knowledgeable on the correct interpretation.

    [Bishop are very busy men. They have a lot of things on their radar and they have to triage them. It is entirely possible that this issue simply hasn’t been on his radar, and so he hasn’t looked into it more deeply.]

  9. Giuseppe says:

    Padre,

    Can you reference a post which goes through the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist and tell us, via GIRM, when the priest must be facing the people, when he must turn to face the people (implying he was not facing the people), and when he must turn to face the high altar. This should not be complicated at all, and it should not have room for individual interpretation. The instructions should say where the priest is, and until they say otherwise, I assume the priest should retain the same position.

    Why doesn’t “quod” refer to “celebratio”? Is it because there is a comma after “possit”? I agree it is a poorly constructed sentence, and quod really should be close to the first clause and not appear to be a relative clause of purpose subordinate to the “ut” clause.

    I say all this despite being a fervent supporter of the NO being ad orientem. I just worry that there is slipperiness in declaring this with, what might be GIRM instructions to the contrary. I’d rather have someone rewrite the GIRM to make it clear when a priest has the option to face the high altar or face the people.

    I suspect Father Hunwicke’s paper is what I am looking for — going to try to get a copy tomorrow.

    G.

  10. Dafyd says:

    Latin teacher here. I wouldn’t expect quod to go with two infinitives, either, as quod is neuter singular and two infinitives would make for a neuter plural relative pronoun. An argument could be made that:

    a) relative pronouns like to stay close to their subject, and
    b) the implied subject of possit (it, as in “so that it is possible” for the purpose clause) ) would be a neuter singular, and so the relative pronoun refers not to the two infinitives, but the implied subject of possit.

    Even so, though, the force of that emphasizes possibility of something — it’s nice to be able to walk around the altar. It’s nice have the option of facing the people, wherever it’s possible to do so. I’m inclined to say that it’s at best a polite recommendation for new churches to be built. Why on earth would every verb except “expedit” be subjunctive otherwise? Indeed, the only verb that is indicative, expedit, essentially means “it’s helpful,” or “it’s nice,” or “it’s expedient,” again emphasizing a notion of polite recommendation for flexibility, not a mandate for one form versus the other, and certainly not a mandate to rip up altars that are already constructed.

    [NB: The quod clause was inserted. The original version of the GIRM didn’t have it.]

  11. Fr. Reader says:

    I suppose this small anecdote of a cardinal talking about the Holy Mass and the altar is the kind of stories that will appear in history books one thousand years in the future.

  12. St. Rafael says:

    With all the confusion surrounding GIRM 299, I think the CDW needs to put out another official response and reclarification on GIRM 299. Once is not enough, unfortunately. The same could be said about the 2000 response on bishops having no authority to forbid priests from saying Mass ad orientem.

  13. Animadversor says:

    One is made increasingly uneasy by the heedless, vicious simplemindedness of the higher prelacy, or at least by that of certain portions of it.

  14. Hidden One says:

    One has to wonder what sort of craziness must have gone on for so many people to think that the Prefect of the CDW would ever publicly give, not to mention publish, a speech/paper contradicting a still-in-force legislative document for which his own Congregation is responsible!

  15. robtbrown says:

    Bishop Taylor can also expect there to be a priest shortage in his diocese.

    [That’s a problem in many dioceses, of course, not just Little Rock.]

  16. Henry Edwards says:

    This magnum opus on GIRM 299 surely leaves nothing further to be said. For how can any WDTPRS reader still fail to understand it correctly? So let’s hope this readership includes some in high places.

  17. discens says:

    Fr.Z, You write about the Latin sentence in question, “It is a vast stretch to imagine that that quod refers to the infinitives in the ut clause (circumiri… peragi). It is also a vast stretch to force quod to be a conjunction (therefore without gender or number).” As a Latin teacher myself I beg to differ. From strict grammatical considerations there is no stretch involved either way. Which of the possible grammatical construals should be taken has to be determined instead by the sense produced. But the sense produced does not by itself determine whether, for instance, ‘quod’ should be taken as referring to the first, main clause or to the second ‘ut’ clause (or even to both together — and why not both together?), since either way works. And the fact that ‘quod’ is neuter while ‘celebratio’ is feminine (which some have appealed to) does not decide the matter, for the relative pronoun would have to be neuter if it is referring back to a whole clause and not to a feminine or masculine word within it. The sentence as written is genuinely ambiguous, in sense and grammar. An accurate translation in English would retain the ambiguity. Your English translation removes the ambiguity because it transposes the ‘quod’ clause. If the ambiguity is to be properly removed recourse will have to be had to the larger context of the sentence. But a final puzzle for you: which way was Christ, our High Priest, facing when he celebrated the first mass on the night he was betrayed: toward the people, the Apostles, or away from them? If away from them, what was he facing instead? If toward them, why not prefer, in imitation of him, to have the priest face the same way?

    [Assuming that Christ and His Apostles observed the traditions relating to food and eating, they probably reclined on carpets or cushions at low tables, leaning on their left, using the right hand, legs stretched out perpendicular to the food. Thus, they were probably arranged in a half circle or a V, to allow for servers to approach on one side. They were, effectively facing the same direction. The mosaic of the Last Supper in Ravenna captures the general style of eating meals in ancient times. HERE]

  18. Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  19. Fr.Estabrook says:

    I typically feel unclean after I read anything put out by the USCCB and Serratelli’s letter is not an exception. Over and over the USCCB shows itself to be a “house divided against itself.”

    “I strongly suspect Bishop Serratelli will retract his letter when the correct translation of paragraph 299 is brought to his attention.” HAH, these guys were behind the mistranslation! (Serratelli is a chairman of ICEL)

  20. rtjl says:

    “Friends, Card. Sarah’s personal invitation, the Sarah Appeal™, to priests was a turning point. ” Pun intended?

  21. Fr. Kelly says:

    Fr. Z
    Do you by any chance have a copy of the full text of that CDW decree from 10 April, 2000? or do you have a link where it may be downloaded?
    I went to the official website of the Congregation, and it is not listed or available there. This sort of oversight seems to have become all too common lately in some of the liturgical matters that deal with traditional practices. I remember it coming out, and have cited it verbally more than once, but I foresee having to produce it in the near future.
    I suspect I am not alone in having this experience of looking for documents that are somehow not where they should be.
    Thank you for all you do for us in the parishes

    [HERE]

  22. jhayes says:

    Fr. Hunwicke, the Latin scholar, has changed his view and says that “quod” could refer to the whole previous part of the sentence, not just to the placement of the altar. He gives a new English translation of that part of #299:

    The High Altar should be constructed separated from the wall so that there is the possibility for it to be easily walked round and celebration towards the people to be done at it, a thing which is convenient wherever it is possible.

    A thing which in the neuter cannot refer in Latin grammar just to celebration towards the people, because celebration is feminine. So it has to refer to whole clauses.

    It must refer either to the whole previous bit of the sentence The High Altar …… at it, or to the ut-clause so that there is the possibility …… at it

    HERE

    That would be consistent with the 25 September 2000 CDW letter, which says “It reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient…”

  23. Mike says:

    The haste and poor reasoning of this and similar reactions to Cardinal Sarah’s sensible suggestion should lay to rest the canard that the liturgy maintained continuity after Vatican II. Liberals’ harrumphalism just digs their hole deeper and deeper.

  24. stuart reiss says:

    what a lot of nonsense with these prima donna Bishops…The Sarah Appeal (TM) is an appeal to make us better realise what we do when we go to mass, and frankly to stop Clericalism in the Liturgy…

  25. musicus says:

    Fr. Z — Keep it up. Don’t back down. I’m starting a daily Mass “ad orientem” on Saturdays at 7:30 am. I’m asking the people for feedback on how they “like it.” For 30 years since before becoming a Catholic, I have felt that there was a contemplative dimension missing from the Ordinary Form (!) and must find out why. We must recapture it. Thanks for the grammatical analysis of GIRM para 299.

  26. rayrondini says:

    It’s so strange that, for a question of liturgical praxis/discipline, people (even under the auspices of the Holy See) are falling all over themselves to walk back, discredit, alter, whatever the exhortation and clarification given by the prefect of the very Congregation responsible for such things. If there were a question (as there was on GIRM 299), one would pose the question to the CDWDS. Now that the prefect has spoken about it… apparently we have to find someone else to ask. I suppose the same has been done to the CDF for years (women’s so-called ordination, anyone?), so it makes sense!

  27. discens says:

    Thanks, Fr.Z, for the link to the mosaic of the Last Supper. Probably then we can’t deduce anything much from the way Our Lord and the Apostles were facing. But anyway, the Church has authority in all these matters, and if the Church permits only one way of facing, then there’s only one licit way of facing; if the Church permits more than one, as now, then there’s more than one licit way of facing. Chacun à son goût, I suppose — in due obedience to the local ordinary?

  28. Henry Edwards says:

    Guiseppe: “Can you reference a post which goes through the entire Liturgy of the Eucharist and tell us, via GIRM, when the priest must be facing the people, when he must turn to face the people (implying he was not facing the people), and when he must turn to face the high altar.”

    How to celebrate Mass “ad orientem”

  29. jhayes says:

    Fr. Kelly, there are two CDW documents from 2000 related to this issue – one from September, which I quoted in my post and which Fr. Z linked in his reply to you.

    The other is from April 10, 2000. That was in response to a situation in which Bishop Foley send out instructions that ad orientum was not to be used in his diocese (I gather that it originaly applied to all masses and later only to televised masses).

    I have never been able to find a copy of that response from the CDW. The best I can offer are some excerpts in an article by Fr. Fessio:

    (1) “This Dicastery [i.e. the Congregation] wishes to state that Holy Mass may be celebrated versus populum or versus apsidem. Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct.”
    (2) “It should be borne in mind that there is no preference expressed in the liturgical legislation for either position. As both positions enjoy the favor of law, the legislation may not be invoked to say that one position or the other accords more closely with the mind of the Church.”
    And (3) referring explicitly to Bishop Foley’s Norms for Televising the Mass in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama: “The publication of such norms falls within the responsibility of the Diocesan Bishop in virtue of his role as moderator of the Sacred Liturgy in the particular Church entrusted to his pastoral care. In exercising this responsibility, even though he is unable to exclude or mandate the use of a legitimate option, the Diocesan Bishop is competent to provide further guidance to priests in their choice of the various options of the Roman Rite.”

    http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/08/22/14-38-18_0.pdf

    I suspect that (3) is the basis of +Serratelli’s indication that the bishop should be consulted – and +Taylor’s framing of his instructions as an expectation rather than a command.

  30. jhayes says:

    Typos: orientem, sent, originally

  31. iPadre says:

    Comedyeye – A bishop may oblige something he has not the right to oblige, infringing on his rights and privileges. In those cases the priest has no obligation to obey, yet he may suffer tremendously for doing what is right, or is his right. I am grateful to have a good bishop, who respects our rights and options.

  32. St. Rafael says:

    There is absolutely no need for a priest to consult his bishop over the issue ad orientem. If a bishop forbids a priest from saying Masses ad orientem, appeals should be made to Rome and the bishop reported to Rome.

  33. RichR says:

    People should ask their priest to try it out on the first Sunday of every month. And on those Sundays, be sure and write a big fat check with “Ad Orientem” in the Memo line. Hand it to Fr. personally on the way out and tell him you hope this will continue (and grow). Tell your sympathetic parishioners to do the same. If enough people show their monetary support, Fr. will have a much easier time discussing it with His Excellency (should there even need be a discussion) when he gets a phone call. If there really is no interest, and people run away from the AO Mass on the first Sundays, well, then you know that the parish is not open to this style.

    Either way, you know, and either way the priest has an out.

  34. Sword40 says:

    Thank our Lord Jesus Christ for the TLM. I am lucky to have it available seven days a week.
    Reading the various letters commenting on Cardinal Sarah’s request, I find that the “liberal jargon” is still being preferred by the Vatican. Fill the air with lots of words so that confusion “doth reign”.
    Nothing to see here folks, lets just move along. It’s a sad situation.

  35. TWF says:

    Prior to the Sarah Appeal, I witnessed a couple Novus Ordo masses celebrated Ad Orientem in my archdiocese. I thus assume Archbishop Miller is OK with the traditional orientation.

  36. crych says:

    Query about ‘ut facile circumiri’. Would it be anachronistic to connect this with the aside in Fortescue & O’Connell (8th, 1948/1953, Imp. 1949), pg. 3: ‘The altar should not stand immediately against the wall of the church ; at the consecration of an altar the rubrics require that the consecrating bishop go round it’?

  37. Pingback: Cardinal Sarah’s Liturgical Reform Meets Resistance - Crisis Magazine

  38. creekman says:

    What is Bishop Taylor (and many others like him) afraid of? That those participating in Mass will find renewed reverence?; That priests will re-discover the transcendence of offering Holy Mass?; That, more young men will answer the call to the priesthood?

    I am in a Southern U.S. diocese as well and attend a small parish where Mass is always celebrated ad orientum. We also have an intact communion rail. Our bishop celebrated Mass at our parish a few months ago, (versus populum), and actually complained about the communion rail after Mass saying it hurt his back to bend over to commune the faithful. He went on to say that both Mass facing the people and communion standing in the hand are the norms in the Church . We ordained zero new priests this year and I think have one for next year. I wonder why?

  39. jhayes says:

    St. Rafael wrote There is absolutely no need for a priest to consult his bishop over the issue ad orientem

    The CDW response of April 10, 2000 to a case of a bishop forbidding the use of ad orientem says:

    3) [referring explicitly to Bishop Foley’s Norms for Televising [Televising] the Mass in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama:]“The publication of such norms falls within the responsibility of the Diocesan Bishop in virtue of his role as moderator of the Sacred Liturgy in the particular Church entrusted to his pastoral care. In exercising this responsibility, even though he is unable to exclude or mandate the use of a legitimate option, the Diocesan Bishop is competent to provide further guidance to priests in their choice of the various options of the Roman Rite.”

    I believe that is the basis for +Serratelli’s USCCB letter saying that priests should seek guidance from their bishop before inaugurating ad orientem.

  40. Giuseppe says:

    Henry Edwards,
    You rock! Thanks for that link. It’s gold.
    Giuseppe