Enough with the Papolatry

Father Hunwicke has a short post this morning that is worth reading. It reminds all of those papolaters out there. He refers to comments by the Dean of the Roman Rota demanding humble obedience as the Spirit speaks through Francis.

What "Spirit." The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity? 

Why do people continue to ascribe more power to the Pope and more authority than he has? Are they a bunch of Protestants or are they trying to prove Protestants correct that we worship the Pope, kiss his toes and fall down and bow at every word he says? 

The proof of what I am talking about is right here, in a comment left on this blog which I have decided to incorporate into this post:

Anonymous said...The Father having been rejected in the Garden, the Son in Jerusalem, God's people His Church now in large part rejects the third person, the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy against His Vicar and hardness of heart. This Vox post is another shameful example. Makes me sick. 9:16 p.m., September 29, 2015  

Muslims speak of blasphemy against Mohammad. How is it possible? It is not! One cannot blaspheme against a man. Are we to agree that a drawing of Mohammad is a blasphemy? Is Mohammad God? You can only blaspheme against God. Read this. The. Pope. Is. Not. God. He. Is. A. Fallible. Man! One cannot blaspheme the Pope. My Anonymous friend has proved the very problem and the correctness of this post. 

The First Vatican Council prescribed the Infallibility of the Pope. We can't tell Protestants what to think but for heaven's sake, can Catholics at least come to understand that the Infallibility of the Pope is a control on his power not an absolute grant of it?

"The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism."

Our dear Benedict XVI said the above during his homily as he took the Chair at the Lateran as Bishop of Rome. He also said in response on Bavarian television that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope:

"I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!"

Do you really think Almighty God elected Alexander VI?

“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations," Bishop Melchior Cano O.P., eminent theologian of the Council of Trent.

Do not confuse the active Will of the Almighty with the permissive.

http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.ca/2015/09/the-pope-and-spirit.html

Answer to Anonymous in Aurora

Some posts reveal just how far our people have fallen due to the failure of priests and bishops in catechetical, scriptural and ecclesiastical teaching. The Sad State of Affairs in Aurora extends far beyond the ecclesiastical-sacramental and collection plate irregularities. The seriousness of these issues are appropriate for the Church to deal with and not petitions of the people or letters to the editor or online. Failure of years of homiletics, liturgy and catechesis has corrupted and failed to correct the thinking and understanding of many members of this parish and others on what it means to be a Catholic and to think, like a Catholic.

A pastor has two responsibilities in life -- to get his soul to heaven and the souls of his flock. If a pastor has formed one to think and believe in a manner as you will read below, then he may have much to answer for. Deformed thinking comes from malformed faith. It is deadly to the person, their families and the broader culture. Those responsible for teaching heresy, mistruths and erroneous opinion and engaging in liturgical abuses could well end up in Hell. Notwithstanding certain heresies and opinions of some fairly prominent theologians and clerics, we do not have a "reasonable hope" that Hell is empty and that most or all are saved, they are not. There is a Hell and those who don't believe it will find out when they get there. 

I am being harsh to WAKE  YOU UP. Time is short, the world is burning and it is going to get worse. Your time is short, so is mine.  

I've written previously and will do so again that it is not me with whom you should be angry. You should be directing it to those who taught you wrongly and failed to teach you how to think and discern truth from lies, good from evil, wrong from right. You write of "love," whatever you mean by love, but do not write of faith or truth. You whine about "feelings" but you cannot articulate fact. Faith is not about feelings. It is about Truth and His name is Jesus Christ!

So, let our catechesis begin.

Anonymous said...

Where does your condemnation end? You could go back much further in the history of the Church to find offences much greater than that of which you speak. The Catholic Church has a very dark history that I'm sure you are very aware of. I am worried/sad for you because of the hate that you cause others to feel. Whether it be directed at people who you feel have sinned, or directed at you for your sensationalist views. You can quote the bible all you want, and that is your right. However, I challenge you to find anything in there about Jesus saying that homosexuality is a sin. Here I mean a very clearly stated quote, and not a piece that can be construed in any number of ways. Also, as far as the practice of marriage goes, I assume you are a aware that the Catholic Church (not God, Jesus or otherwise) decided that this should become a sacrament in the medieval times. Who are you, or I or anyone else to say what constitutes a holy, sanctified marriage? If you were truly a Godly person as you claim to be (and for the record I am not saying that you aren't) I cannot understand how love is not the focus of your writing. People make mistakes, people sin, people are not perfect, but who are we if we cannot accept them and help them to the best of our ability? Who are we to condemn? Saturday, 7 February 2015 at 21:38:00 GMT-5 

And.
Anonymous said...

Hi Brian (it's me again)

you do raise a good point that because Jesus didn't condemn something by name, then anything goes. Clearly that is not reasonable to assume. However, who then makes these decisions to condemn others who are different? I am not homosexual myself, but I have the privilege of knowing a couple of people who are. Homosexuality is NOT a choice, who, in their right minds would make the decision to be gay in a world that is still so ignorant and hateful towards those who are? It is not the work of the Devil. These are loving, intelligent people who have every right to have the love and happiness that we have. As far as my reference to marriage not originally being a part of the Church, it is true that I have not looked into this fact in many years. Once upon a time I studied medieval history in University, this is where I learned this fact (through my own research). This comment was more to the idea of the Church being a changing entity to which Vox was arguing against. Let me be perfectly clear with what is my belief, a belief which has grown through the Catholic Church. Love is where faith should begin. One of the biggest problems that I have seen with religion in general is people hiding behind their faith to make 'holier than thou' statements. These people attend Church regularly and therefore believe that they are superior to those who do not. You want to be 'Holy', or 'Good'? Get involved in your communities and make a positive difference. Don't judge others because they are different, love them for it. Have meaningful discussion about your differences. Condemnation ends any and every conversation and hate takes its place. Every single time.

Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 14:43:00 GMT-5 

Shall we unpack these?

1.0: My condemnation of evil and those who undermine truth and liturgical prayer will end, God-willing, with my last breath and the words, "Jesus have mercy upon me a sinner," may I have that grace! I hope to be welcomed with "Well done, good and faithful servant you have been faithful with few things" but I expect I will have a millenium or two or more in purgatory. There, I go quoting scripture again and Catholic dogma which seems to be an issue for you. 

1.1: You seem to be a member of this parish. Perhaps you should show your anger over what happened 25 years ago, since you mention a "dark history" in the Church proper. Please tell us what other examples of this so-called "dark history" you accuse the Church of committing, real dark history, not the revisionist history of the Muslim Brotherhood lackey Obama's view of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Please, be specific about the greatest force of good in human history, rather than some canard which simply did not exist.

2.0: I hate no person, though admittedly, it comes close with Obama (and don't even think that I am a racist, the better-half of the Vox, the Fox; is South African!) I do hate the Islamo-fascist movement that is wiping out Christians and setting the world aflame - I hate the false religion founded by a murderous peodophile and denier of Christ; I hate the sodomite-fascist movement that is undermining the culture, the family and going after our youth by convincing them that it is "cool to be gay" and the Church is wrong (been to a school lately?) I hate the pervert movement epitomised by the child porn aficionado and former bishop Raymond Lahey masturbating to the images of naked boys on his laptop computer. I hate the pathetic and perverted actions of child pornographer Bernard Levin whose work still influences lesbian Kathleen Wynne and her intent to corrupt children with unacceptably blatant sex education in our schools. I hate abortion which kills babies and hurts women and proclaims choice without ever describing the choice - murder of the innocent. I hate the movement to kill our elderly and infirm (yes, it will go that far) through the Supreme Court of Canada, I hate all of these and you should too. On all of these, it is the fault of Catholics, bishops, priests and laity. We are 40% of Canada's population. If we lived our faith we would change our country overnight. As for me, "Truly, I know my sins, they are always before me."

3.0: Are you judging and "condemning" me for "quoting the Bible?" If so, then you are playing right into the hands of Protestants, now and in history, with their "Catholics don't read the Bible" mantra. 

4.o: You challenged me to "to find anything there (in the Bible) by Jesus saying that homosexuality is a sin ... a clearly stated quote ... not construed" 

4.1: I imagine the question of sodomy is raised because I mentioned it in the original post. I proffered that the filthy, degrading history of a pastor and associate pastor decades ago has left a darkened spirit in the parish. That abomination released a devil in the parish yet to be exorcised. Demons occupy space and geography, not just people. 

4.2: Your comments reflect a nihilistic, relativist, modernist and politically-correct view of marriage, divorce and the condition of homosexuality. The men that did this in your parish were sodomites. Not all men - those homosexuals suffering with same-sex attraction (SSA) - are pederasts [men having sex with post-pubescent boys verses paedophiles which have sex with prepubescent boys or girls] but all pederasts are homosexuals! You've heard of NAMBLA, right? The sex abuse crimes committed by priests, except in rare cases, were crimes committed by sodomite priests upon boys that had reached puberty. Homosexual sex with post-pubescent, virginal teen-age boys has historical fact dating back to ancient Greece and Rome. It is not new. Even one thousand years ago in his monumental work Liber Gomorrhianus" St. Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church said, “For God’s sake, why do you damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery ambition?” 

You ask, for authority, I give it to you. Where is yours?

Caution - use of certain terminologies that some may find disturbing

4.3: The homoheresy movement has succeeded in making one think that it's all about love and curtains and nice kitchen appliances and the colours of paint on the walls and "his and his towels" [JB this is from Fox] and that anyone taking an opposing view is a hater. They have made people think that it is about tolerance and acceptance. It is not. It is about destroying marriage and the family and forcing the acceptance of sexual perversion on the rest of us. It is about promoting a pattern of life filled with guilt and self-loathing and normalising it. It is evil and those who are manifestly trapped within it have been given over to Satan. Fisting, rimming, anal and oral copulation, urination, fecal play, slurp-ramping, glory holes, public bath-houses for sex and other deviant behaviours and public nudity is not acceptable. The body is a "temple of the Holy Spirit" - it is a sin against God and a crime against nature. Why should I care? I care for people's souls. Every sin affects the world, mine and yours. It destroys grace and dulls the senses. Sexual sins of fornication, adultery, sodomy, pornography, masturbation and so on create a need to go further and further for satisfaction Pornography of homosexual and heterosexual nature is one of the biggest crises facing children and youth, it is rampant. Men and yes, women -- Catholic men and women watch pornography regularly spending trillions of dollars on it and blind to the damage that it causes to their souls and psyche. Pure evil. Is this hate? No! It is in fact love to speak the truth. Men wear diapers because they have lost control of the anal sphincter! They die younger than men not engaging in sodomy. They have greater degrees of depression. Their suicide rates are higher. The rates of syphilis and gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases are higher and more virulent to say nothing of AIDS. The abuse between same-sex couples is manifestly higher than heterosexual. Monogamy is rare. 

4.4: When you say that sodomy is not a choice, you are wrong. We all have a choice whether to sin or not. We do not have to have sexual relations with anyone. The condition and causes of SSA is not fully understood but, nobody is born with a "gay-gene." A loving God who creates us and condemns this behaviour would not create us in this manner. It is a learnt behaviour - psychological, emotional and environmental. People have freed themselves from the behaviour and I know men that have. They may still have some form of SSA they do not act out on it. Some marry and become fathers. Some dedicate a life to God offering up their suffering for the sake of their souls. The Church, as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not label people as "Gay" notwithstanding certain imprudent remarks by the current Bishop of Rome. We are not defined by our sexual action. There are only two genders, the rest are straight from the pit of Hell. The desire to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex is "intrinsically disordered" not the person, the desire as the Church teaches magisterially and definitively in the Catechism, is disordered, the act is mortally sinful. It is one of the four sins "crying out to God for justice." The acts of sodomy, fisting, rimming, oral-copulation, sado-masochism, mutilation of the gentiles through surgery along with adultery, fornication, masturbation and bestiality are sins against God and nature and the unrepentant will end up in Hell, period.

4.5: The word homosexual is just over one hundred years old -- 1892. It is an English translation from Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis. Of course, Jesus did not use the word, the word did not exist! Sodomy is used throughout Holy Scripture and it is the sin to describe unnatural sexual acts, usually between men, but can be broader. Jesus did not need to use the term; everyone knew in first century Judaism that it was a sin and an "abomination to the LORD." The first century apostles and the early church fathers knew it.

4.6 Jesus is God. He was "from the beginning." Jesus is the WORD MADE FLESH. He was active in the Old Testament, He was the WORD of God Who came forth in the Blessed Mother's womb. Do you believe this? If you are a Catholic you must believe this. Jesus said plenty about sodomy.

4.7 These verses are taken from the New Revised Standard Version -- Catholic Edition used in the lectionary in Canada. 

• Leviticus. 18:22. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
• Leviticus. 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
• Romans 1:24-27. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
• Jude 1:7. Just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, (NOTE: NOT INHOSPITALITY - St. Jude would know, he spoke to Jesus and was his cousin) serve as an example by undergoing punishment of eternal fire.

4.8: Jesus did say these things. Jesus is God the Son who is, was and always will be. He is the WORD as stated above. It was the WORD through the HOLY SPIRIT  that inspired Holy Moses and Saints Paul and Jude to write that which you read above, or do you not believe this? Are you questioning the clear and unambiguous teaching of Holy Scripture?

5.0: You further wrote that, "as far as the practice of marriage goes, I assume you are a aware that the Catholic Church (not God, Jesus or otherwise) decided that this should become a sacrament in the medieval times. Who are you, or I or anyone else to say what constitutes a holy, sanctified marriage?" You also indicate that "once upon a time you "studied medieval history at university." So, your professors, many biased against the Catholic Church are to be believed but the Church is not? Did university teach you at least to think and research? The bible tells us to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" as can be found in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Why would the St. Paul tell us to "prove" it if he was not certain that the truth could be proven? I'll take St. Paul over your professor.

5.1: With all charity and respect I must ask this question, "Are you really a Catholic?"  I must also ask a more important question; "Who put in your mind the doubts of the truth that would cause you to make such statements?" You have proven my point, that you and the people of your parish (I assume that Our Lady of Grace is your parish) have every right to be angry. The problem is, you are angry with me for shining a light and writing the truth when you should be angry with those who were responsible for forming you as a Catholic and who failed. They will be held responsible for this on their judgement day "for to whom much is given, much is expected" and "it is better that a millstone be tied around their necks and they be thrown into the bottom of the sea rather than to scandalise one of my little ones." We were once and in many ways still remain, "little ones." However, you will also be held responsible notwithstanding your false teachers. You are not a child, you are presumably Confirmed by the Holy Spirit. You went to university. There is the Internet for you to do research. You have no excuse - none of us does. Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do you believe what the Church teaches? If not, why are you here? If your conscience cannot abide the truth, why do you stay? How can you hold false beliefs and receive Holy Communion?

5.2: Do you believe that the Catholic Church -- One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic -- was established on earth by Jesus Christ as His Bride and from which grace will flow to the whole earth to gather mankind within Her to bring all who will come to Heaven? Do you believe that to do this, Our Blessed Lord established it under Peter to whom he gave the "keys of the kingdom" and that what Peter -- the Church "binds on earth shall be bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven?" Do you believe that the Pope is in the line of Peter and that the bishops are the Apostles of our time to carry out the work of salvation for you and I through Holy Mother Church? Do you believe that "outside the Church there is no salvation?" If you do not believe these truths as revealed by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Authority, then you have not been properly formed as a Catholic and it is not surprising that you would hold the views that you do.

5.3: Last Sunday was Marriage Sunday in the Archdiocese of Toronto. The Deacon at the Mass where I chanted Saturday evening referred to the Book of Genesis where God gave Eve to Adam and this was the marriage from which the earth would be filled. Let us look at some verses from Scripture, again from the NRSV-CE. 

• Matthew 19: 1-11 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.  Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there. Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery. His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.”

5.4: Note that twice Jesus says "at the beginning" (some translations use 'in'). What is He referring to? He is referring to the first three words of the Holy Bible in Genesis - "In/at the beginning." In other words, God always intended that marriage was something ordained from Him to be "holy and sanctified" quoting yourself.

5.5: To say that the Church made marriage a "sacrament in medieval times" is simply untrue What are you referring to and where do you get such fallacy? Who told you this? Show me the proof? Protestants were similarly vexed with the believe that "transubstantiation" was also a medieval construct. Wrong. The transformation of the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ - body, blood, soul and divinity, was always believed from the very beginning. It was defined with a word "transubstantiation" by St. Thomas Aquinas. It was always believed. The Church - East and West - always believed in the Dormition and Assumption of Our Blessed Mother but it was not defined as dogma until 1954!

5.6: Marriage between a man and a woman was ordained by God from "the beginning." The Church ordered it as a Sacrament from the early days -- a Sacrament not imposed by the priest or deacon but exchanged by the man and woman. It has also long been recognised that our protestant brethren generally maintain two of the Seven Sacraments, the first being Baptism the second being Holy Matrimony, between two Protestants, not with a Catholic. Before syphilis rotted his mind, King Henry VIII was given the title by the Pope of "Defender of the Faith," a title still held by Elizabeth II, Regina and granted, ironically, because of his defense of the Seven Sacraments against the heretic, Martin Luther. The Church of Rome, and the other autocephalous Churches have always from the beginning that matrimony was a sacrament. It has been a ritual in every culture, even pagan, from the beginning of time. The abomination of which two men or two women marrying is a pathetic and disgusting attempt to normalise a perversion and undermine our culture. You cannot re-write 6000 years of human history and culture by an Act of Parliament! You cannot undo what is within the natural law by political correctness.

5.6: You and I have every right to say what is a "holy and sanctified" marriage. I have every right because of my faith and grace of Baptism and duty of Confirmation. I have the authority to do so under "referential authority." I'm surprised that they did not teach this to you in university. I refer to the authority of Holy Scripture, the authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authority of the writings of the Popes such as Familiaris Consortio by a declared Saint - John Paul II and so on. As a rational man given knowledge and natural law, I can refer to 6000 years of recorded human history of every culture. Our native people in Canada the Aztecs and others - they all had marriage between a man and a woman and they did not have the Holy Bible! It is therefore as much culture and history as it is faith and sacrament! Human society has always held marriage as a sacred act, even when it did not know God.

6.0: Pope Benedict XVI wrote an Encyclical called Caritas in Veritate, Charity (Love) in Truth, you may wish to read it. Love is found in speaking and writing the truth. If I told you what you wanted to hear even though I knew it was wrong and would deceive you, would I be showing love? If I saw you attempting to put your finger in a light socket and did nothing, even though I knew that it could harm or even kill you, would I be showing you love? 

5.8: Must there not be order in the Church? Must bishops not act appropriately to protect the integrity of the truth, the sacraments and the law of the Church and the Province for which they are responsible? You keep excusing what happened with stories about "feelings." Yes, love, love, love. Absolutely. Saint Paul tells us that "love covers a multitude of sins." But you cannot have love without truth.

Jesus did not come to "destroy the law but to fulfil it." When he cautioned the people about the Pharisees he warned the people to follow them in "the law" but not to act "as they do." 

Make no mistake, you have been manipulated. You've been manipulated by priests, by teachers, by media and by those who would misconstrue the truth.

You should be angry but not with Vox.

If you wish to write me privately to explain any of this further, for reasoned explanation or catechesis or to find a priest that can help you, please write me at voxcantoris@rogers.com.

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion: What does the Church really say?

It has been an extremely busy summer, as usual and thus, blogging has been sparse. There is much on my mind and much for us to talk about. So, let us begin with this.

In this document is the clarity on what are ubiquitously referred to as Eucharistic Ministers. Friends, there are only three "Eucharistic Ministers" in the Catholic Church, a bishop, a priest and a deacon. The actual "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" the correct term, is an Installed Acolyte, generally a Seminarian. The laity can be delegated to fulfill the need for an Acolyte in the absence of one. The Church is hierarchical, so is the liturgy. If an Installed Acolyte is present at a Mass, he has the right and obligation to Lector or serve as an Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in the place of the laity. The lay person must stand down. If a priest not celebrating the Mass delivers a homily and stays to distribute Holy Communion, he cannot be usurped by a layman. If a Deacon is present, he must fulfill his role as an Ordinary Minister of the Eucharist and must never be supplanted by a layman.

In 1997, on Assumption a document was issued by the Holy See called  Ecclesia de mysterio and it was signed by an unprecedented number of Prefects! The first dicastery listed was the Congregation of the Clergy, clearly for whom this was meant. For the purpose of this topic, let us just look at Article 8 of this Instruction.

Amazingly, the document was issued and signed by:

 

Congregation for the Clergy

Darío Castrillón Hoyos

Pro-Prefect

Crescenzio Sepe

Secretary

 

Pontifical Council for the Laity

James Francis Stafford

President

Stanislaw Rylko

Secretary

 

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Joseph Card. Ratzinger

Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone SDB

Secretary

 

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez

Pro-Prefect

Geraldo Majella Agnelo

Secretary

 

Congregation for Bishops

Bernardin Card. Gantin

Prefect

Jorge María Mejía

Secretary

 

Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples

Jozef Card. Tomko

Prefect

Giuseppe Uhac

Secretary

 

Congregation for Institutes of Consecretated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life

Eduardo Card. Martínez Somalo

Prefect

Piergiorgio Silvano Nesti CP

Secretary

 

Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts

Julián Herranz

President

Bruno Bertagna

Secretary

 

Article 8

 

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

 

The non-ordained faithful already collaborate with the sacred ministers in diverse pastoral situations since "This wonderful gift of the Eucharist, which is the greatest gift of all, demands that such an important mystery should be increasingly better known and its saving power more fully shared".(95)

 

Such liturgical service is a response to the objective needs of the faithful especially those of the sick and to those liturgical assemblies in which there are particularly large numbers of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion.

 

§ 1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)

 

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in un foreseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

 

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

 

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

 

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

 

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

 

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

 

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful".

 

The GIRM for Canada!

Finally, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has announced and made available, the GIRM for Canada 


Over the next few weeks, I will be providing important sections of the GIRM, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal here and my commentary. I profess no authority other than that of a Catholic layman educated in these matters. These posts will be presented here to assist you in understanding the GIRM in order to better appreciate the beauty of the liturgy and this new Missal for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. These posts are also intended to clarify issues that have been discussed here and which you may need in your parish to educated your friends and unfortunately, your Pastor, as the combox clearly reveals. As I said to Charlie Lewis in the National Post interview, "the better the liturgy, the better the prayer, the better the Catholic."


Given that this blog made such a noise about the kneeling posture, it is fitting that this controversy be discussed first. This writer began a series of posts on the matter of the "kneeling posture" last winter. It was a result of an investigation for the delay of the Recognitio for the Third Edition of the Roman Missal and its corresponding GIRM--General Instruction (on the Roman Missal.). The Bishops' Conferences in the Great Britain and the United States had already announced implementation for the first Sundays in September and Advent, respectively. There web pages and catechetical materials were already well-developed, but in Canada there was nothing; silence, priests knew little if anything and the people knew even less.


My investigation revealed two things; the web page of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops indicated that there would be no new GIRM for Canada until the "French" equivalent was completed (the Missal could not be implemented without the GIRM); and the knowledge from a priest friend that "they want you off your knees!'


My letter of inquiry as to the reason for the delay of the Recognitio from Rome to the General Secretary of the CCCB, Msgr. Patrick Powers was answered with the referral to a six month old blog post which I had already referred to in my letter to him and a perplexity as to what the delay in Rome could be. Further letters which included my suspicion and made it clear that this writer was not going away extracted more information including that a meeting would be held which he and the CCCB President would attend with the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments and that they would express "my concern" over the delay and that there was "nothing out of the ordinary" in the Canadian request. Well then, why the delay?


Around the same time, my suspicions that the kneeling issue was the reason for the hold up was confirmed when I received a copy of the actual page of the "Grey Book" (submission of the CCCB to Rome for Recognitio.)


There was the proof; the norm for kneeling in Canada would be from the end of the Sanctus to the end of the Memorial Acclamation. Bishops could instruct kneeling only at the Consecration (as per the 1975 GIRM) and where the practice of kneeling from the end of the Sanctus to the end of the Doxology and then at the Ecce Agnus Dei, it is "laudable to retain this practice." With this evidence, the CCCB finally admitted that the reason for the delay was indeed the disagreement in kneeling posture which was significantly different from that approved for Britain and America. However, I did not stop there. My research was taken up by a priest who would know whether it was legitimate or not. It was deemed credible and it was presented to a senior official in the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. The assurance was given; it would be further placed in "friendly hands" this would not be approved without further study at CDWDS as they agreed that the Canadian submission would result in less kneeling and stress and controvesy and the message was sent; "Canada needs more kneeling, not less!'


So what now is the kneeling posture for Canada:

43.     The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the Priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Universal Prayer; and from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren), before the Prayer over the Offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated here below.


          The faithful should sit, on the other hand, during the readings before the Gospel and the Responsorial Psalm and for the Homily and during the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory; and, if appropriate, during the period of sacred silence after Communion.


          In the dioceses of Canada, the faithful should kneel at the Consecration, except  when prevented on occasion by ill health, or for reasons of lack of space, of the large number of people present, or for another reasonable cause.53 However, those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the Priest genuflects after the Consecration. Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy,Holy) until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer and before Communion when the Priest says Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God), it is laudable for this practice to be retained.  


         For the sake of uniformity in gestures and bodily postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the instructions which the Deacon, a lay minister, or the Priest gives, according to what is laid down in the Missal.

The rule for Canada now is consistent with the 1975 GIRM, kneeling is at the Consecration. Yet, in many parts of Canada this was never enacted. Tradition and popular piety held sway in many places for decades following the implementation of the Novus Ordo Missae and the laudable "practice' is in place in much of Canada. Where the expert liturgists could, they pushed their agenda and got many in the Maritimes, Quebec and Alberta and Manitoba off of their knees. Some initiated a compromise from end of the Sanctus to the end of the Memorial Acclamation and the Bishops of Canada wanted all three enshrined.


On this, the three variants for Canada, Rome declined and the GIRM is as above with some change in the word order that seems to be firmer. The Canadian submission was "it is laudable to retain this practice" and what was approved was "it is laudable for this practice to be retained."


While one might desire that one uniform posture, and if you read this blog you probably agree with me that it should be the most traditional manner, we now have uniformity and clarity, something lacked for decades. It is possible that in some places with the kneeling currently ending at the Memorial Acclamation they may simply extend the kneeling, but at least in one diocese according to the combox, this will not be the case, it will be only at the Consecration, a step backwards.


Rome clearly did not want to see an innovation or establish a precedent. Nowhere in the world was this Canadian third-way and compromise in place and it would not be now. Given that even in St. Peter's Basilica, kneeling or a profound bow (at the hips) is in place at the Consecration, we in Canada could hardly argue.


Now, I wish to address a note in the combox from a reader in the Diocese of London:

Interestingly, although this instruction mentions it as being laudable for the congregation to remain kneeling from the Sanctus to the end of the Cannon; this has been the practice in the Diocese of London in all of my 40 plus years.Until today.At the Vigil Mass this evening (Sept 10th) in my parish today, the Priest Celebrating the Mass, required the congregation to stand immediately AFTER the Consecration.This was something new and perhaps, the thin end of the wedge ? Has anyone else in this part of SW Ontario experienced anything similar? Are we being set-up here ?

Yes, you are being set-up and it is up to you to do something about it. The difference between you and me and our parents and our grandparents is we know! We know the truth because you've read it above and if you don't believe me you can go to the link and read it yourself because you are a grown-up Catholic now.


The Diocese of London has always followed the "laudable practice" and the Bishop of London has not changed this. There should be uniformity across a diocese, this priest has engaged in a a liturgical abuse and is being creative.


First, the GIRM does not take affect until the First Sunday of Advent, so, the priest was simply wrong to instruct you last night to stand to do this. He is being disobedient to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, on this, there is no doubt. You have the right (under Redemptionis Sacramentum) to raise this error with  him and to his bishop.


Second, the Diocese of London has indeed followed the "laudable practice." This priest, if he has read the GIRM, has not read all of paragraph 43. Let us look again what it says, "..it is a laudable for this practice to be retained." What does this mean? Laudable comes from Latin and it means, "praiseworthy". Think here of Magna cum laude (With great praise) or Laudate Dominum (Priaise the LORD) or Lauda Sion (Praise O Sion). If to do something, in this case kneeling, is "praiseworthy" what does it mean not to do it? 


Each of us has the right to expect the proper implementation of this long-awaited Missal. We have the right and responsibility to act and to inform. In many places it will be up to you and me; those who Bishop Trautman of Erie called dismissively, "John and Mary Catholic" who would be too simple-mined to understand words such as "ineffable" or "gibbet" in the corrected translation, to ensure that the Missal is properly implemented. It should not be that way, but sadly, the "spirit of Vatican II" still reigns in many dioceses and in many parishes.


What will you do?

Run out of Town

My good friend Bear over at The Spirit's Sword has written a wonderful essay on the history of the Church in the Archdiocese of Toronto. Bear also has a fascination for old churches in Ontario and has been for a few posts now highlighting some.

He has posted an old link to a story about the wonderful Church of Our Lady in Guelph and how it was almost wreckovated, "Vosko'd" if you will pardon the expression; as told by Paul Likoudis and originally published in Challenge Magazine.

Parishioners of the historic Church of Our Lady of the Immaculate in Guelph (Hamilton Diocese, Canada), known commonly as "the cathedral," rallied earlier this year to stop a drastic plan to alter the awe-inspiring interior of their magnificent church. 

Father Richard Vosko, a priest of the American diocese of Albany (New York State), who had proposed the radical plan to remove the church's marble communion rail, confessionals, high altar and rearrange the pews, was still paid $60,000 for his plan to wreck the church's interior; but, parishioners will enjoy - at least for the foreseeable future - worshipping God in the magnificent surroundings crafted by their ancestors.

On Saturday, 13 March 1999, the parish priest, Monsignor John Newstead, informed parishioners that, after consultation with Bishop Anthony Tonnos of Hamilton, Fr Vosko's plan would not go forward because of overwhelming opposition by parishioners.

The Church of Our Lady of the Immaculate is an enormous neo- Gothic, twin-towered church modelled after the Cathedral of the Three Kings in Cologne, built by parishioners at the turn of the century of stone cut from local quarries.

"Basically what happened," said a parishioner active in the effort to block the 'renovation,' "is that we prevailed because we did our homework and Fr Vosko didn't. We told him that if everything was wrong, why didn't anybody tell us this for 30 years."

The parishioners' experience with Fr Vosko and his plans for the Church of Our Lady mirrors that of many other North American churches.

In the mid-1990s, Guelph's parishioners were advised that the church's leaking roof had reached such a stage of disrepair that a major renovation of the roof was in order, which was estimated to cost approximately $3 million.

Parishioners understood the importance of the work, and began fund-raising and sacrificial giving on the part of many. However, before that fund-raising period was completed, Monsignor John Newstead announced his plan to "restore the interior." "People thought 'restoration' meant restoration," a parishioner said, "that dilapidated and worn out material would be replaced."

'Renovations'

Then, in May of last year, Monsignor Newstead informed parishioners that the Church of Our Lady had contracted with Albany priest, Fr Richard Vosko, to come in and offer lectures and advice on how to renovate the church. "That's when we learned there was more afoot than just freshening things up. Fr Vosko told us that, under Vatican II, the altar and its ornate surrounds were wrong and had to be removed; the altar rail should not be there; a recently-installed elevator to help access our handicapped people was in the wrong place; the altar itself had to come forward so no-one would be more than 60 feet from it; the baptismal font and confessionals were in the wrong places.

"He didn't even like the big heavy wooden doors with their huge iron hinges. He said they were most unwelcoming. What Fr Vosko didn't know is that these doors were very welcoming to us. Many of the parishioners came from lands where their parents and grandparents were persecuted for the faith, and those heavy doors were most welcoming because people knew they could find sanctuary in the church. Fr Vosko wanted to take those doors off."

As is often the case in other parishes where Fr Vosko works, parishioners are never informed in advance that Fr Vosko has been retained, the cost of his services, and how he is to be paid. "We were simply invited to attend workshops to hear some proposals," said the parishioner. "We were told the renovation process would be 'open.' We were told, 'It's your church. We want your opinion'."

In May 1998, Fr Vosko gave his first presentation, and then returned a month later to give an update, speaking each time to about 350 of the parish's 1,500 members. To most, Fr Vosko appeared arrogant, brash and insulting. "People were stunned and shocked by his presentation. Disbelief at his proposals was widespread. We couldn't believe a stranger would come into our church and tell us everything was wrong with it," said the parishioner.

As a result of those two meetings, upset parishioners began meeting on their own and formed a committee to oppose Fr Vosko's proposals, and eventually formed the Committee for the Preservation of the Interior of the Church of Our Lady, with eight parishioners taking the lead. The newly-formed preservation committee held a number of public meetings, and it soon became apparent that a sizeable majority of the parishioners opposed Fr Vosko's plans.

At one of the meetings, the group obtained 500 signatures on a petition to stop Fr Vosko's plan. Despite rising opposition, however, the "core committee" formed to ruin the church resisted popular reaction. The preservation committee made strenuous efforts to have a meeting with the "core committee," but were rebuffed repeatedly.

Finally, the preservation committee was able to meet with two members of the "core committee" to present their views, at which time they asked its co-chairmen to present the views of the preservationists to the full committee. The "core committee" members were reluctant. Still the preservationists persisted. Finally, after three months, the core co-chairs relented and allowed the preservationists to present their views.

Program dropped

At that meeting, the members of the "core committee" sat in stony silence, not once uttering any comment or acknowledgement, and the meeting adjourned. Time passed, and the preservationists asked for another meeting.

Just before Christmas 1998, the request for a second meeting was granted. At that subsequent meeting, the preservationists were given the "Vosko II" report, which detailed the changes approved for the church - despite the fact parishioners had been told repeatedly no decisions had been made.

"So we spent most of the Christmas period preparing a five-page brief in response," a member of the committee said. "We presented that in early January, and to this day, we have not received any comment.

"However, that doesn't matter. Subsequently, the preservation committee called a general meeting of the whole parish - including the "core committee" - and we outlined the entire procedure to date. The parishioners were vociferous in their response, and made it very clear they did not want Fr Vosko's proposed changes." After that 9 March meeting, parishioners were informed the following Saturday by Monsignor Newstead that he had discussed the matter with the bishop, and "in view of the divisiveness which had occurred, the program had been dropped in its entirety."

This report (here edited) originally appeared in the Canadian Catholic journal 'Challenge'.

Well, I just checked out the website of the good Father Vosko. The destruction on the Cathedrals of Milwaukee and Rochester is well known; even Rome tried to stop Rembert Weakland from the destruction (oh well, they couldn't stop him on anything else so this seems rather trite). There are almost 40 wreckovations listed. Let's see, he was paid $60,000 for doing nothing in Guelph, if he was paid $100,000 for doing something in these places, that's $4,000,000.00!

Not bad for a priestly career eh?

Ascension Thursday-Our Liturgical Loss

Jesus went up to heaven 40 days after Easter, not 43.

There are 9 days between Ascension and Pentecost, not 7.

These things are important.


The Canadian Bishops amongst others need to restore Ascension to Thursday along with Epiphany to January 6, from where we get Twelfth Night and the Twelve Days of Christmas.

These things are important.

Now there is the Octave of Pentecost and the Gesima Sundays.

How a New Mass Composition SHOULD Sound!

One of the joys of having a blog are the little gems we find in the combox.

Dear Vox,

As an alternative to a lot of this awful music, I have written a congregational setting of the new translation with SATB choral writing, that I invite you to listen to. Perhaps this might relieve you of your despair - not all new Church music is bad...

http://www.benesonarium.com/roman-missal/

Yours in prayer and beauty,

Chris

Dear Chris,

Thank you for leaving the note and thank you for your beautiful composition. I can't stop listening to the Sanctus, it is exceptionally well crafted, beautiful with dignity; it lifts the mind and heart, I want to sing this next Christmastide! Yes, you are correct, not all new music is "bad." There is much good work being done by you, Keven Allen, Jeff Ostrowski and so many others. This is such great news and your music above shows how unfortunate the offerings being put forward by Canada's bishops.

Friends, Chris is right, there is good music being written today. But you need to ask for it to introduce it to your pastor or choir director and not accept the drivel being put forward in your parish. This is not just a matter of preference like wanting anchovies on your pizza. Some things are just plain wrong, like pineapple on pizza as an example.

You're a grown up Catholic now.

You have the internet, you don't need the "professional liturgist" or talking-head media cleric to tell you, you can find it for yourself.

Now, go forth and sing!

New Roman Missal for Canada, Canadian Compositions

Oh Vox is in the mood for a rant!

Of course the good news is that the corrected translation of the 2002 Roman Missal will implemented in Canada in November on the First Sunday of Advent.

The bad news is the musical setting of at least one of the Masses commissioned by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

If you can stand any more than about 20 seconds, I'll be surprised.

Go here and listen.

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd do.

The most fundamental papal document about sacred music is the Motu proprio of St. Pius X, Tra le sollecitudini of November 22, 1903 in which the Saint wrote:

“Sacred music must, therefore, possess in the highest degree the qualities which characterize the liturgy. In particular it must possess holiness and beauty of form: from these two qualities a third will spontaneously arise—universality.”

This composition is as far from this sentence as one can get!

As someone who has worked for twenty-five years in church music and its restoration, as someone who is published and who is educated in what the Church desires in Her worship, this is not it.

The Gloria in particular is simply unsingable by a congregation; then again, I did not get past the first 30 seconds because I couldn't stand it. Where is the "actuoso participationem" in this musical drivel?

I will attend the Toronto workshop in a few weeks to see and hear for myself the rest of these settings. If these are no better than this piece of banal musical garbage that the so-called "professional liturgists"at the CCCB think is in keeping with sacred music then they should be literally, fired for incompetence.

To think, royalties from your parish will be paid to the composer of this trash.

Now what do I know, after all, according to an American-born, Toronto-based Toronto media cleric, I am not a "professional liturgist" so what do I know.

I will not sing or promote this trash and if the other two compositions are of the same calibre it will be another ajbect failure on the part of Canada's bishops to restore the liturgy.

Instead, it will be up to young Priests, Cantors and Choir Directors to be strong and motivated to do that which is in harmony with the mind of the Church and it is not this musical drivel.

So, at the parish in Toronto where I provide the music as Cantor for the Ordinary Form, this is the plan.

1. Concentration on the ICEL setting which are based on the Gregorian tones and only ICEL settings of the Memorial Acclamations.

2. Continued use of existing Kyrie and Agnus Dei from Father Somerville's New Good Shepherd, Proulx's Community and Togni's Parish Masses.

3. Easy adaptation of "power and might" to "hosts" in the Sanctus of all three. In fact, the Good Shepherd and Parish Mass were originally scored for "hosts" for the 1965 Missal and had to be adapted for the incorrect translation we've been forced to endure for forty years.

4. A re-introduction of Father Stephen Somerville's original Good Shepherd Gloria from 1965 (I am fortunate enough to have a copy) with the change of one word, "men" on a quarter note to "people" on two eighths. This Gloria was always the correct translation.

5. Slow and cautious introduction of new compositions which follow the principles of sacred music so much of which is offered for free by the Church Music Association of America and Corpus Christi Watershed.

Now, in case you are wondering what it should sound like as far as chant is concerned which can be best described as "sung prayer" here is an example of the Gloria, lovingly sung, to the tone from Mass XV which will be in the new Missal. This is based on the ancient Gloria and is the oldest known of all Gregorian settings from the 900's. Yes, you read that correctly, the tenth century.

Now, did you listen to this? Can you compare it to that composed by Dawson?

Which to you evokes prayer and worship and solemnity and devotion and the Catholic liturgy?

Now, my question for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, John Dawson and the other "professional liturgists" out there, of which I am not one is this: "If this is actually in the new Roman Missal and it has been available on the web from ICEL for almost a year, why did you not consider that this in fact, is the style of music most suited to the Roman Liturgy? Or, did you actually consider it and you chose simply to ignore it?

Priests, friends and colleagues in Church music. You don't need the CCCB's settings. You don't need the banality of this pulp. You don't need any more ugliness. You can find everything you need for the liturgy, free on the web and above are just some of the links.

Now, my next question; "Where are the Propers?"

Oh, they're here in the Simple Propers Project which I use every Saturday Vigil Mass in Toronto.

For something more elaborate; feast your eyes and ears on this soon to be published gem.