Archbishop Prendergast read the GIRM!

Archbishiop Terence Prendergast, S.J. of Ottawa may need read this blog (or perhaps he might) but he sure read the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) and understands fully the mind of the Church on these matters. Thanks to SoCon for the information.

May the Archbishop be richly blest for his clarity, his teaching and his leadership and loyalty and may other bishops in Canada follow his example: (bolding is my emphasis).

Letter to the Archdiocese of Ottawa

on the Implementation of the Third Edition

of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

The First Sunday of Advent sees the introduction of a new translation of the Roman Missal for the English-speaking members of the Archdiocese. I am confident that the priests of the Archdiocese have been preparing the faithful on the new prayers and responses contained in the new translation. November 27 is also the date on which a new version of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal comes into effect.

After discussing with priests how to carry out these changes in our liturgical life, I have determined that, in the Archdiocese of Ottawa, we will do this in stages, gradually putting into effect practices that the Universal Church is inviting us to adopt so as to enrich the sacred liturgy as an offering pleasing to God.

I will be writing you several times in the new liturgical year, proposing an ordered implementation of new directives, some of which will come into effect in Advent, others in Lent, still others during Eastertide and at Pentecost.

In the meantime, I encourage priests, religious and the faithful to read and reflect upon the Third Edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). The General Instruction of the Roman Missal may be found in the new Roman Missal, is available as an offprint from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and may be downloaded from the website of its Liturgy Office [cf. www.romanmissal.ca/GIRM.pdf]. Liturgy committees will profit from studying it carefully in order to understand the new norms in context.

On this occasion, I wish to draw your attention to several matters: the General Instruction’s invitation to unity in the congregation assembled for the Eucharist—including in posture; the call in the General Instruction for reflective silence at Mass; the Creed to be recited on Sundays and major feasts; and a change with regard to the lectionary in the entrance procession.

The General Instruction offers a wonderful expression of the ideal of unity in the People of God gathered for Eucharistic worship in paragraphs 95-96, which read as follows:

In the celebration of Mass the faithful form a holy people, a people of God’s own possession and a royal priesthood, so that they may give thanks to God and offer the unblemished sacrificial Victim not only by means of the hands of the Priest but also together with him and so that they may learn to offer their very selves. They should, moreover, take care to show this by their deep religious sense and their charity toward brothers and sisters who participate with them in the same celebration. They are consequently to avoid any appearance of singularity or division, keeping in mind that they have only one Father in heaven and that hence are all brothers or sisters one to the other.

Moreover, they are to form one body, whether in hearing the Word of God, or in taking part in the prayers and in the singing, or above all by the common offering of the Sacrifice and by participating together at the Lord’s table. This unity is beautifully apparent from the gestures and bodily postures observed together by the faithful.

The ideal, then, is realized in part when the faithful manifest their unity by common postures. The postures to be observed at various parts of the Mass are spelled out in #43; we are familiar with most of these, including the call to kneel for the consecration (which in the Archdiocese of Ottawa means from the end of the Holy, holy, holy until the acclamation of faith following the Consecration).

What is new is that, except for kneeling at the Consecration, the General Instruction says that the faithful should stand ―from the invitation, Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren) until the end of Mass‖. How this is to function in practice will have to be worked out in particular circumstances, as #43 also says that the faithful may sit ―if appropriate, during the period of sacred silence after Communion‖. Some liturgical experts have suggested that the congregation remain standing until the last person has received Holy Communion at which point people kneel or sit in reverent prayer. When queried whether people may kneel or sit on returning to their place after receiving Holy Communion as, generally speaking, we have been accustomed to doing, the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship said that the expression of unity should not be so emphasized that people are not free to kneel or sit in prayer after Communion.

The note about silent prayer following Communion is part of a wider call for reflective silence at key points in the Mass: in recollection before the Penitential Act; after the celebrant says, ―Let us pray‖; following the readings and the homily. The General Instruction calls us to reflection and an unhurried pace in order to foster true liturgical devotion (cf. #45 and 56).

The new Roman Missal indicates that the Apostles’ Creed, following a long-standing tradition, is appropriate to Lent and Easter. Accordingly, I ask that the Nicene Creed be proclaimed on the other Sundays and holy days of the year when the profession of faith is to be said.

This year our Pastoral Theme—―The Word of God grew and multiplied‖ Acts 12.24—strives to have us focus on the power of God’s Word in our lives. I will speak about this in my next reflection on liturgy in January 2012. The liturgy gives priority to the Gospel and so the description of the entrance procession stresses the Book of the Gospels over the lectionary (cf. GIRM #120 d). Accordingly, the lectionary may no longer be brought in procession but should be placed on the ambo. If a Book of the Gospels is available (the English Sector of the Canadian Church hopes this will be available in a couple of years), it is carried in procession and placed on the altar until it is brought to the ambo.

Changes in the liturgy, dear brothers and sisters, are demanding as they interrupt habitual practices which have become second nature to us. So, I counsel patience at this time and openness to what the Lord is asking of us for our greater spiritual good in this transition.

When he published Third Edition of the Roman Missal, Blessed Pope John Paul II wished this new book of liturgical prayer to open us to new prayer formulas and to liturgical celebration of newly-canonized saints. He saw it as the ongoing manifestation of the renewal of the Sacred Liturgy desired by the Second Vatican Council.

Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will move us to grow more fully into our dignity as the holy people of God by our embracing these new prayers and modified liturgical practices.

       Devotedly yours in Christ,

         Terrence Prendergast, S.J

 Archbishop of Ottawa

On the Solemnity of Christ the King

November 20, 2011

The Prairie Messenger: Source of the Problem?

Much has been written on this blog over the last ten months on the matter of kneeling in Canada. Some have perhaps found it boring, some have found it informative and helpful. Regardless, I have been blogging on this because I have believed it to be necessary.

While I have no proof, it is my opinion and there are others, including some priests and deacons who share my view, that the professional Catholics in Canada had no desire to see the new Missal or GIRM implemented until at least 2012 when they could see how it went in the United States, as if there was going to be a problem. I suppose they were looking for a backlash so they could say to Rome, "see, we are right not to implement."

They were ordered by Rome in February to implement on Advent I, they had no choice. A meeting was held at the Congregation which included the President and General Secretary of the CCCB where it was made clear to them. It is my view that many resent this and will do only the minimum and in fact, will do less by setting up obstacles to what the GIRM really says or, as in the case of Fred Henry in Calgary, do his own thing.

So, where does this issue on kneeling come from?

The writer below is not the originator of this view but he was a proponent of it here in Canada; though clearly this theology view was certainly all the rage for a long-time, still is in many parts and it has infected many. It is the biological solution that will fix this.

This monk has left a progeny of dissent and their numbers are declining and quickly. They know that their work has been straw but they cannot admit it to themselves.They are still clinging to power but they see that power being stripped away.

They profess to do all this for us, the "laity" and they condemn "clericalism" but they actually hate the laity who love the Church and they are the worst form of clericalists. They are Protestants but did not have the honesty to get up and leave.

You see, they realised it to late and like the manager of whom Our LORD spoke, they are too proud to big and too old to work. So, they stay and suck the life out of the Church for a room and board and while they are still here they sow their seeds of discontent.

Unfortunately, this monk uses historical inaccuracies and does not go into the detail to explain why we may have certain practices. Just because the East does something does not mean it is necessary in the West. The East did not experience Luther and did not have to counter massive disbelief in the Real Presence or Ministerial Priesthood. If we were meant to do as the Last Supper, then we should have Holy Communion "reclining at table" sitting on the floor.

He makes claims and attributes them to Fathers of the Church but he provides no references nor the context of their alleged statements for the reader to verify. We are to take his word for it, his interpretation. He is after all, a cleric.

This Benedictine monk display an incredible ignorance of history and liturgy and he makes continual references to sexuality and displays a rather prophetic phrase from the news recently; you'll pick it up, just don't be drinkin' your coffee over the keyboard.

For your lazy Saturday morning with coffee, here are three articles below from Andrew Britz, OSB (St. Benedict, pray for us). Here is what Catholic Insight had to say about Father Britz. Given that one book of his writings has blurbs from Joan Chittister, who provided the Foreword and Mary-Jo Leddy who calls it a "textbook in political discernment," you kind of get the direction from where he comes. (the lack of capitalisaton of Eucharist is from the PM -- even blogger's spell check wants to capitalise it, Blogger knows!)


Corpus Christi (Prairie Messenger, June 7, 1993)

The eucharist is the centre of our church life, the symbol that signifies the fullness of Christian life. In celebrating the eucharist the church is expressing itself at its deepest level. The eucharist makes present to a celebrating community the full benefits of the Lord’s passover from death to the newness of life.

These three modern expressions, which could easily be expanded, indicate how important the eucharist is to Christian life. The “old” theology, which nurtured most of us pre-Vatican II Catholics, in its own way also highlighted the eucharist’s centrality: the mass is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary; bread and wine lose their fundamental natural meaning and are transubstantiated into the real presence of Christ; one cuts oneself off from the Christian community and from God (commits a mortal sin) if one intentionally misses Sunday mass.

One might have a personal preference for the old or the new, but in neither school of expression can one avoid an important truth: the mass or eucharist is central to church life, and what we express in that liturgy has monumental ramifications for the communal life of the church and for the self-understanding of each individual Christian.

One would expect, in such circumstances, that the church would struggle mightily in every age and culture to give the eucharist its broadest and fullest expression so that everyone might be personally flabbergasted at the meaning Christ gave them when they became part of his body in baptism. Yet a study of church history shows that the exact opposite is the case. In most of our history the eucharist was given narrower and narrower expressions.

Rather than highlighting the communal nature of Christian worship, the liturgy became more and more the domain of the clergy and an expression of clerical power. It became something the clergy did for the people. For a priest to celebrate mass became the greatest privilege in the world.

What a surprise that must be for Jesus Christ who gave us a religion he so carefully grounded in reality through such everyday sacramental signs as breaking bread together, drinking wine among friends, indulging the body with the best perfumes, massaging the sick lovingly with oil, making love with uncontrollable climaxes of pure sexuality!

Once the clergy had full control of the liturgy they quite naturally, over many centuries, reshaped it to fit their own image of the perfect church. The everyday work and workplace of the vast majority of the church members no longer rated.

We can speak only for the western world in which we live: we live in a church in which a strong majority of women, especially those professionally trained, experience the church as a community biased against them. We get excited by the divisions the ordination of women is causing in the Church of England, and yet remain blind to the much deeper divisions that continue being enacted in our liturgy and in the exercise of authority in our church.

But it is not principally a problem of our communities of religious women. It is a church problem. Bright young women cannot come to trust a church which they see preferring men to women. They are not about to enter religious life.

We must address fully and honestly the place of women in the church. We must acknowledge as wrong all that has made them feel they are not called to celebrate as full citizens of God’s reign. If women cannot celebrate Corpus Christi (being the Body of Christ) with joyful abandon, it is a sign that we have not been faithful to the Lord.

- - -

Kneeling at the eucharist (Prairie Messenger October 2002)

In their latest newsletter the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Liturgy declares that in normal circumstances “the only licit posture” during the eucharistic prayer is kneeling; the preface with its ancient opening dialogue is apparently not seen as part of the prayer. Churches built in recent times without kneelers must now have them added to the structure (see page 5).

While demanding considerably more kneeling than is suggested to national conferences of bishops in the Vatican’s updated General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the American bishops see any variance from the prescribed norms as either “a private inclination or an arbitrary choice.”

Those seem like harsh words indeed for those pastoral liturgists who are convinced that standing at the eucharist has been indisputably the traditional practice of the universal church for more than half of its history, and is still the uniform practice of the Eastern churches.

One must wonder what the universally recognized “heavyweight” among eastern doctors of the church, St. Basil, would think on reading that to believe it is right and proper to stand at the eucharist is no more than “a private inclination or an arbitrary choice.” That same Basil once declared — admittedly in an excessive outburst of rhetoric — that it is a mortal sin for a Christian to kneel publicly anywhere during the Fifty Days of Easter, or anytime during the whole year (Lent included) during the eucharistic prayer.

No wonder that the first privilege excommunicated Christians lost was that of standing among the faithful at the eucharist. But lest one think that this is only eastern theology burdened with the thinking of such bishops as the Cappadocian Fathers, one does well to remember that, at the heart of the Roman Canon, the only eucharist prayer of the Roman Rite for more than a thousand years, the People of God are called the circumstantes: those standing around the table of the Lord.

Saint John Chrysostom, the church’s key theologian on the meaning of the priesthood of Christ, interpreted the first-century dialogue that opens every eucharistic prayer in both the East and the West as the People of God’s empowering of their clergy to celebrate for them the Sacred Mysteries of the Lord’s death and resurrection in the eucharist.

While GIRM suggests to the bishops’ conferences that they have the people kneel from the Sanctus to the end of the Last Supper Narrative, the American bishops call for kneeling until the Great Amen — ostensibly to give a uniform sign to the whole eucharistic prayer.

One can understand that the American bishops could find no rationale for rising after the Last Supper Narrative, but their solution is even more difficult to understand. They end up asking the People of God to stand for the introduction to the prayer, which is to set the tone for what is to follow, and for their complete acceptance of the prayer in the Great Amen, which St. Augustine says should reverberate throughout the church like a thunderclap.

To kneel during a prayer that is introduced, situated and given its colour by the ancient dialogue and the preface, and then to rise in order to accept it surely makes little sense.

Of course, the reason given for kneeling is to show profound adoration. The eucharist is unquestionably the heart and soul of our liturgy and thus requires our most profound response. But is begging for mercy and/or adoring God on our knees our most profound response?

The ancient dialogue and the preface would indicate otherwise. They clearly call us to enter into the mystery of Christ with joyous thanksgiving, and in a celebratory mode that places the Christian community not as foreign visitors beyond the communion rail but at the heart of the celebration.

St. Augustine says it beautifully in one of his Eastertide homilies: “It is your mystery which has been placed on the altar of the Lord; you receive your own mystery. You say Amen to what you are” (272).

Anthropologists remind us, again and again, that celebration is the deepest action of the human person. Many of those who advocate kneeling at the eucharist do so because they are afraid that thanking God “for counting us worthy to stand in his presence”  (Eucharistic Prayer II) is too shallow a response. St. Augustine’s homily, on the other hand, states that by centring, first of all, on the grace we have already received, our reverence for the special presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist will only be deepened.

One can only hope and pray that the Canadian bishops will hold fast to their traditional teaching that the deepest expression of the Christian people on the Lord’s day is to stand with heads held high in God’s presence, in loving service of Jesus’ “flesh given for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51). — AMB

- - -

Standing at the eucharist (Prairie Messenger November 2002)

If one looks up the word “kneel” in a New Testament concordance, one can find quite a few references, many of them speaking in a positive manner of the first Christians — and, indeed, of the Lord himself — kneeling in prayerful worship of God Almighty.

Yet for many centuries we have no record of the Christian community, which certainly knew its Scriptures well, kneeling at the eucharist. Indeed, church leaders and theologians went so far as to say it was a sin for a Christian to kneel at the eucharist. 

In the West, Augustine spoke of kneeling at the Lord’s Supper as a denial of one’s Christian dignity. It is our mystery that is placed on the altar; we, in Christ, celebrate who we are.

In the East, which normally saw things in a broader perspective, the act of kneeling at the eucharist was deemed a denial of the Lord’s resurrection; you cannot sing “Alleluia” on your knees. Thus St. Basil went so far as to declare it a mortal sin to kneel publicly during the Fifty Days of Easter or during the eucharistic prayer.

When suddenly, with the Peace of Constantine, the Christian community was able to come “above ground,” they spontaneously did something unheard in the ancient world: they constructed their places of worship without an explicit god-symbol. They saw themselves, assembled in Christ’s name, as his living presence. No wonder they could not kneel.

We know, however, that before the first millenium had run its course, the laity were beginning, here and there — but not for many more centuries in Rome’s major basilicas — to kneel at the eucharist.

Something quite revolutionary had to have taken place for the church to change a universal tradition — indeed, one that its great church fathers had deemed could be broken only under pain of sin. As kneeling is once more being explicitly promoted as the preferred posture for the laity at mass, it is important to study carefully what led the church to make a 180° turnaround.

Much of it had to do with the development of the theology of the ministerial priesthood. Greatly influenced by the wave of pagan priests who saw the writing on the wall with the Peace of Constantine and “converted” to the new religion, the developing theology of the priesthood emphasized the eucharist as sacrifice and that only sacred people could carry out the required rituals.

The priest became the active agent in the liturgy, doing sacred things for the laity who assumed a passive role. If those in authority (now all clerics) did not see the priest as the only truly active agent, they would never have allowed the central act of worship to be conducted in silence in a language unknown to the People of God.

Little bells were rung three times during the liturgy, encouraging the laity to take note what the priest was doing at that moment. The rest of the time they were to be gainfully occupied with their own private devotions.

A large crucifix was hung over the priest’s head, giving the laity something worthy of their attention during the mass. The highlight of the mass was the elevation of the host, which the priest with the sacred power given him in ordination had changed into the Body of Christ. There was virtually no connection any longer between the consecrated host and the faithful assembled in community.

Indeed, the split had become so great that even the vessels on the altar were deemed so holy it was a sin for an “unconsecrated” lay person to purposely touch them. And, of course, the very sanctuary (cut off from the assembly by the communion rail) was so holy that it was a sin for a woman to enter it during the liturgy.

The Body of Christ no longer had any relationship to what the laity were. It was what they received. And, as the final putdown, they received it not in the hand so that they could feed themselves, as would any adult, but rather in the manner in which parents feed their children — directly into the mouth.

When this process of change was complete — it took several centuries — the church had turned itself inside out. Priests no longer drew their liturgical power by gathering the faith of the community. (St. Augustine once said that in the sacraments the word does not get its power by its being spoken by the priest but in its being believed by the people.) Priests no longer acted in the name of the community; they did things for the community.

The laity were no longer central to the liturgical act; they were no longer expressing their deepest meaning, thus becoming the sacrament they were celebrating. Rather, they were reduced to receivers. The most active function left to them was to look upon the host and adore. And what could be more appropriate for that than kneeling?

The Second Vatican Council and the Roman congregations in the years after the council looked carefully at all these developments that led the church to put aside its universal tradition of standing at the eucharist. Many things were changed, some quite obvious. Women were allowed to read during the liturgy, and, to the consternation of many, were allowed in the sanctuary and could be ministers of communion.

The most important change, however, was not so obvious. The laity, assembled in Christ’s name, had once again become central to the celebration. Indeed, the Vatican documents began talking about everyone actively celebrating, with the priest being the “principal celebrant.” With this shift in theology, Augustine’s and Basil’s words on standing while celebrating their own mystery made perfect sense.

Congregations overwhelmingly took to standing not because it was easier (many find it harder) but because it seemed appropriate. It fit.

The church, and especially our bishops, must look closely at why kneeling is once again being promoted as the proper posture at the eucharist. If, as many suspect, it is to reverse the theology of the laity that has come out of the council, there simply is no room for compromise. — AMB

- - -

There is a lot above to digest but it is clear that this monk and those whom he has influenced have a view of the church that is a rupture. This is not what is envisioned in Sacrosanctam Concilium or the Third Edition of the Roman Missal or the GIRM.

What he does not tell you is that up to 1975, there was no "rubric" for the laity to kneel at all. The 1975 GIRM and the 2002 GIRM mandate kneeling at the "Consecration" as a minimum. But the GIRM recognises the "laudable practice" of particular communities and regions over decades, centuries even to maintain the practice which they have developed. He is contradicting himself. In fact, the Church is recognising the "community" in allowing this kneeling to continue.

It is the "liturgists," nuns and monks and priests confused over their own vocations and obviously, their sexuality who have wreaked havoc on the people of God whom they desire to empower. They are like the manager to whom Our LORD parables, too proud to beg, too old to work.

They are the worst form of clericalists. They are always right and the laity loyal to our Holy Mother, the Church are wrong.

They have left no progeny to take up their dissent. They are old, sick and dying, the bishops whom they have influenced are gaining in age and in ten years will be nearing or past retirement.

Last Sunday, I met a 16 year old who desires to be a priest and on Tuesday, I had dinner with a Deacon to be ordained in May, the future is in good hands.

The LORD has not abandoned His Church.

Is the Bishop of London listening?

A few minutes ago I received a letter from a friend in the Diocese of London. She has written to Bishop Ronald Fabbro, CSB on the matter of hard-handed actions and words by some priests to enforce an instruction from the Chancery.
She writes: "He also mentioned how change is difficult and he knows more catechesis is needed, etc. That's fine, the main thing is that he respects the fact that people can kneel if they choose. Now, people need to encourage him to let all the diocesan priests know since some are being bullies when people choose to kneel. I'll still be encouraging people to send in incidences of bullying, threats, accusations, etc., to Bishop Fabbro and if they wish to Rome, too. And, to consider sending Bishop Fabbro a message about their disappointment in his wishing to change a long-standing custom of kneeling after Communion." Now, make no mistake, this is not over; we need to see what next Sunday brings in London.But, let it be known, the Internet is giving us the laity the ability to stand up and be counted and to address this. Now, what are you Catholics doing about this in Calgary, Sault Ste. Marie, Saint John, Kamloops, Antigonish, Halifax, Winnipeg, Moncton, Regina...

"So while desiring to see a move toward this unified posture, it would never be my intent to forbid kneeling following the reception of Holy Communion." Most Reverend Ronald Fabbro, CSB, Bishop of London in Ontario.

What Arinze said...

What is Rome's position on forcing people to stand after recieving Holy Communion?

Question: Does everybody have to stand until the last person has received Holy Communion?

Francis Cardinal Arinze: "There is no rule from Rome that everybody must stand during Holy Communion. There is no such rule from Rome. So, after people have received Communion, they can stand, they can kneel, they can sit. But a bishop in his diocese or bishops in a country could say that they recommend standing or kneeling. They could. It is not a law from Rome. They could -- but not impose it. Perhaps they could propose. But those who want to sit or kneel or stand should be left reasonable freedom."

http://www.adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html


 

Hey Moncton: Stand Up for Yourselves and Kneel Down!

Here we have news reaching us today from Moncton giving me another reason to publicly thank Archbishop Thomas Collins.

I imagine the "link" will only work for a few more days. Catholics in the Maritimes have sure had their pain to endure not the least of which has been the preying on their children by wicked homosexual priests. The liturgy is a mess, church attendance is poor and vocations are almost non-existent.

6. Posture of the Communion Rite: The time of receiving communion is a sign that unites us as we all come to be fed at the Lord’s table. This is not about a private, devotional time between me and Jesus. It is a time that we, the Body of Christ, come to share in the Body of Christ, and so to go out to be the Body of Christ to the world. We do this as a community of faithful disciples. This is also another time in the liturgy when we take the same posture as the presider. And so we remain standing until the last person has received communion. At this time we will all then be seated for sacred silence, a time to give thanks for this blessing that God offers us. Of course, there are those in our midst who would not be able to stand for this period of time. It is most acceptable that they are seated as they need. The rest of the community remains standing as we sing together, notice our sisters and brothers who approach to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. We stand with our music ministry who lead us in song during this time. We stand as resurrected people. We stand in unity with all who come to the table. And we sit to give thanks in silent prayer once all have been fed.

Hey Moncton; any vocations?

When was your last ordination?

Let's remember our Catholic brothers and sisters in Moncton and Saint John and Halifax, and Antigonish and Newfoundland in prayer that they will soon have priests who will work to rebuilt His Church there.
Now, good people in Moncton; from a half Maritimer (my late mother was born in Fredericton) go and sit down and write, then stand up for your rights and kneel down for your LORD, if you choose to do so.

Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera
Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Palazzo delle Congregazioni,
00193 Roma,
Piazza Pio XII, 10
Vatican City

It's "my church" you silly cookie worshipper!

The news from London Diocese headed by Basilian, Bishop Ronald Fabbro just keep coming. There is no doubt that those who serve and advise the Bishop in liturgy have to give an accounting to him, to the people and most of all, to the LORD.

Members of my family, in the London diocese, were all commanded to stand for the reception of Holy Communion; their parish priest berated them that such behaviour would not be tolerated in "his church." As if that were not shocking enough he labelled them, "cookie worshipers"! This latest proscription on kneeling after communion does suggest this may not have been an "isolated incidence." Although this case was the most egregious of many, it does suggest organic growth from a corrupted tree. "No one eats this flesh without having first adored it...and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so." St. Augustine on The Sin of "Spiritual Pride" in the Diocese of London!

Your Excellency; I know this is not what you intended.

Elizabeth at 10:02 who left this; please write to me privately and urgently at voxcantoris (at) rogers (dot) com

Catholics in Canada: Rise Up and Kneel Down!

Go here, my Canadians sisters and brothers, and join Canadian Catholic Preserving the Custom of Kneeling after Communion!

A Metropolitan See and its Wayward London Child

Thank you and a prayer for God's abundant blessings on Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto for having the grace, faith and pastoral sensitivity to recognise the "laudable practice" in the GIRM that the kneeling custom in Toronto is to be maintained. That is, from the end of the Sanctus to the end of the Doxology and from the beginning of the Ecce Agnus Dei. After Communion, the faithful may kneel or sit. as they are inclinded, as is their personal choice.

Our grown up American brothers and sisters are much more fortunate that the Holy See has already ruled on ths ludicrous behaviour by episcopal dictators. Gee, they seem to find something in the GIRM to enforce that isn't there but they can't enforce the minimal use of Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion or Gregorian chant?

Meanwhile, the poor people of the See of Toronto's wayward child have had gestapo like "ministers of uniformity" going around telling them to get off of their knees. The Diocese of London under Bishop Ronald Fabbro of the Congregation of St. Basil as High Priest of liturgy has ordered under the rubric of "obedience" that people must all stand after Holy Communion until all have received and returned to their pews as a sign of "unity" and "community."

Woe too, to those in Calgary who suffer from a bishop who states, "The GIRM says this...In Calgary, we do this..."

Reports are reaching us today from Calgary, Antigonish, Halifax, Winnipeg and other places of this rudeness and intrusion on the part of some of Canada's high priests of liturgy.

God bless Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver for recognising "laudable practice.'

As referred to in the link above, this little matter has been dealt with by Rome previously and quite effectively at that same link by Francis Cardinal Arinze, whlilst he was Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Letters will be written. Rome will be called in to intervene.

Look at this from a Facebook feed about the situation in London today:

Sadly, in my diocese last evening, some left Holy Mass in tears and angry after being forced to stand after receiving Our precious Lord in the Eucharist and were prohibited from kneeling. Shame on the priest and our bishop!

I just knelt anyway, the liturgy belongs to all of us, and the Holy See said we can kneel if we wish. I have never like bullies. The priest and I had a good discussion afterward and he at least seemed interested in finding out what Rome has said about this "no kneeling" after Communion liturgical fad. I'll be emailing the documents to him today.

One parishioner, in his 70's, was so upset at Holy Mass after being told the bishop said we can't kneel after Communion anymore, he yelled out during the priest's homily, "Father, why can't we keep kneeling together as a sign of unity?" The priest just responded, "This is what the bishop said we have to do for unity." Unity? Give me a break. Ripping away a centuries old custom from people, which takes place during a most miraculous moment in their lives, does not create unity. It creates harm through division, anger, and deep hurt. God save us!

Gentle Reader, this is not what the GIRM requires. This is not in the new Roman Missal. The bishops who do this are being insensitive and cruel. They are not doing what the Church wants. It is an ugly power-play.

It is my view that many, many bishops, priests and professional Catholics and liturgists resent in every way the Third Edition of the Roman Missal and the translation mandated by Liturgicam Authenticum. They were forced to implement it when as recently as last February they denied any sense of urgency when the Recognitio was still not granted. Some will stop at nothing to ensure that that which is to surround the Missal  to increase reverence and holiness does not happen.

If they are so eager to interpret what is not in the GIRM when will they actually interpret correctly what is in there such as Gregorian chant?

Dear Reader, you have a responsibility to stand up get in the battle in a way that our parents and grandparents were not out of blind obedience and ignorance.

Here is one way.

CANADIAN CATHOLICS PRESERVING THE CUSTOM OF

KNEELING AFTER HOLY COMMUNION

And with your spirit

Let us now rejoice give thanks to God that the Novus Ordo Missae in English now has a translation that befits the celebration of Holy Mass.

What was the experience in your parish?

A blessed Advent to you all.

Vox.

Somebody reviles Vox; Blest am I

A few days ago, whilst working on some other tasks on the computer, I heard in the background a program on Salt + Light which I blogged about here.

The next day, a pretty strange comment appeared in the combox.

Our good friend "Anonymous" either knows me or knows of me. Not only did he mention my name, which is not too hard to find, but he actually mentioned my employer and questioned my employment and my work ethic. I don't care about that, I won't respond to his calumny. But I do care about my employer and to those whom my work serves so well. I deleted the comment to protect my employer from scandal. I am re-posting it below with necessary censored parts to reveal to you, dear reader, the ugliness that the truth brings out.

Salt + Light has many, many good people working there. They are good Catholics, faithful and see their work as a true apostolate. Notwithstanding that, there needs to be more care on their parts for canned, non S+L produced programs and that was the point of the blog post.

Sometimes shining a light on a problem is helpful. It is not to attack the people or their organisation but to bring attention to a problem so that they can do better in the future.

There are people who resent Catholics who blog because our keyboards and our computer screens give us the ability to address issues in the Church which our predecessors were unable to do. You don't need to be a bishop or a liturgist to understand and to communicate the truth. Some resent this ability because it means that they can be challenged in the public square for comments they make and things that they do.

I make no apologies for my criticism elsewhere on this blog of Celebrate in Song or the National Liturgical Commission or the Bishop of Calgary's blatant disregard for the GIRM and I make no apologies for making you aware that a pro-abortionist, church-hating, anti-Catholic bigot appeared on a Catholic television station, no matter that there is no support for her position by the people at the network.

But who would leave such a message in public, in writing and in the combox?

Surely friend, if you wanted to write to me you could have done so in private, my email address is available through the blog.

Instead, you have committed public calumny.

I am not offended by it, but I am disturbed that someone who obviously took offense to my highlighting of the truth and my asking of an honest question would debase themselves in such a manner.

The tone of the letter is familiar to me.

Debate the point friend, but why would you stoop to such a low point as this?

Anonymous at 1:54

"My question(s), perhaps more relevant:

"Why would the XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX employ Mr. XXXXX.XXXXX - at $90,000 per year -to sit on his fat ass and blog all day long instead of working? I mean, isn't he just stealing from xxx xxxxxxxx at this point?. shouldn't he at least have some type of task or deliverable work to do? Shouldn't he at least have to show up at work to get paid?"

As per Matthew 1, these are not my questions to judge. But I'm guessing that St. Peter doesn't look too kindly upon those who take from the Catholic Church and give nothing back.

Good luck, Mr. XXXXX, in your quest to judge others before judging yourself."

Oh, by-the-way, thanks for the raise.

Cardinal condemns "Ladder-climber's self interest"

Cardinal Ouellet uses frank words about those who lust and lobby for the episcopate! (my emphasis)

Every bishop must defend the faith, Vatican official says

Vatican City, Nov 24, 2011 / 03:20 pm (CNA).- Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect for the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops, said that every bishop is required to proclaim the Church's teachings to modern society.

Bishops should be “capable of publicly defending the faith,” Cardinal Ouellet underscored. “In addition to the virtues that are normally demanded of a bishop, this capacity is particularly necessary today.”
In an interview with the Italian daily L’Avvenire on Nov. 18, Cardinal Ouellet described the involved process of selecting a new bishop which requires taking the opinions of numerous people into account.

“This research provides important elements for ruling out certain candidates and accepting and proposing others,” he said. “In some cases, additional inquiries need to be carried out. Altogether, it is a serious process that is normally done well.”

Some priests actually aspire to become bishops, he noted, saying that there can also be “movements or pressure to suggest or insist a certain priest be elevated.”

“For this reason, it is important to evaluate not only the human and emotional maturity, but also the spiritual maturity of the candidates for bishop,” he said.

Cardinal Ouellet noted he has also had some candidates turn down their appointments. 

“There have been quite a few more than I expected,” he said. One of the main reasons for this trend is that “in recent years, the role of the bishop, and of authorities in general, both religious and political, is not at all easy.”

“Likewise because of the scandals, the media campaigns and the accusations of sexual abuse by priests and religious. It is understandable that not everyone wants to confront these situations.”

Ultimately, all bishops must realize that their mission is to serve Christ and the Church and not themselves, he stressed. 

“Bishops should know who they are working for, that is, for the Lord and for the Church,” Cardinal Ouellet said. “Not for themselves. When this happens, it becomes apparent in the way in which their personality is expressed. The ladder-climber’s self-interest prevails or tends to prevail.”

 

Celebrate in Song: Two critiques of the new CCCB booklet

Here is my article from the December 2011 edition of Catholic Insight. Permission has been granted for a reprint at http://www.canticanova.com/.

You can read it all, here:

Celebrate in Song: Two critiques of the new CCCB booklet
By Raymond Lévesque and David Domet
Issue: December 2011

Attending one of the workshops in Toronto at Annunciation parish on the music for the new Missal I was amused to find that one of the presenters, a "professional liturgist" in front of over 400 people would say; "they (ICEL) have even set the Nicene Creed to music; why anyone would want to sing the Creed is beyond me."

Indeed.

When questioned as to the Propers, she responded, "What are they?"

This from one of Canada's professional liturgists does not speak well for the rest of Celebrate in Song.

The three settings composed by Canadian composers are no closer to the ideal of what the Church expects and calls Sacred Music than that which is mostly now tolerated.

Salt + Light Features Pro-Abortion Communist and Anti-Catholic bigot!

Why would Salt + Light Catholic Television* feature a program called "Context with Lorna Dueck" which features as a guest anti-Catholic bigot and pro-abortion advocate and communist and former head of the radically feminist National Action Committe on the Status of Women, Judy Rebick.

Is this appropriate "Catholic" television programming?

Just askin'.

* aired on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 @ 10:00 P.M. EST

Celebrate in Song---Conflicted Interest

Well, well well...isn't this interesting.  It seems that two of three composers of the less than appropriate Mass settings in Celebrate in Song are actually on the National Council of Liturgical Music under the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Now, how much did your parish pay for this? Um, did the Bishops not command that you "only" sing these? Does all this seem a little out of the ordinary?

Nah, it must be just me.

Nota bene: Perhaps those who have foisted upon Catholic in Canada the banality of Celibate in Song might be interested in this:

Vatican instructions on liturgical music, architecture coming soon

November 22, 2011

The Vatican will soon unveil a “liturgical art and sacred music commission,” and issue new guidelines for the construction of churches and the renewal of liturgical music, according to Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa.
Tornielli—who has compiled an enviable record for predicting new developments in the pontificate of Benedict XVI—says that the new commission will mark an important step in the Pontiff’s long-cherished plan for a “reform of the reform” in the liturgy.
 
The commission will be part of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Tornielli reports. He notes that in September, Pope Benedict relieved that congregation of its responsibility for several canonical issues, explaining that the Congregation for Divine Worship should devote its energies primarily to “giving fresh impetus to the promotion of the Church’s sacred liturgy.”
 
That congregation, under the leadership of Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, will now issue instructions on liturgical music, architecture, and art, Tornielli reports. These instructions will be designed to insure that all artistic elements are oriented toward a reverent celebration of the liturgy.

On the Corrected Translaton of the Roman Missal

Courtesy of The Chant Cafe and FaithUK is this important article from Father Tim Finigan writing in the September/October edition of Faith Magazine. As approach the last week of a translation of the Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo Missae) which has been a destruction to the faith Father Finigan brilliantly summarises its deficiencies and what it has meant. It is important that you make your friends aware of not only what is coming but the history and outright consipiracy to destroy the liturgy.

The New (corrected) ICEL Translation

Tim Finigan FAITH Magazine September – October 2011

Fr Timothy Finigan, Parish Priest of Blackfen, sketches the slow process, following Christopher Monckton's 1979 expose in this magazine, of correcting the 1970s mistranslation of the text of the liturgy. He also touches upon the opportunities offered by the translation for healing some of the deep ecclesial wounds of recent decades. Fr Finigan has a popular blog, The Hermeneutic of Continuity.

People have grown old and died waiting for an accurate English translation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Most Catholics under 40 years of age have never been able to participate at Mass said according to a faithful rendering of the official Latin text. This injustice to the People of God is now being rectified, and not before time.

The imprimatur for the first full ICEL Missal in England was given by Cardinal Heenan in October 1974. The introduction of the whole Missal was not necessarily immediate. In England and Wales, the former, and much better translation of the National Liturgical Commission (NLC), known colloquially as the "Wheeler Missal" after Bishop Wheeler who played a significant part in producing it, remained legitimate as an alternative. In the September-October 1975 issue of Faith Magazine, Fr Holloway wrote: "To my mind, it is a blessing that our Bishops have not yet allowed ICEL complete and total dominion, although for how long can NLC hold out?" In fact, it did gradually fall into general disuse, although some priests carefully retained copies of the Wheeler Missal. In recent years, they have become as gold dust for younger clergy. (It is still legitimate, I suppose, until the first Sunday of Advent, though I wonder whether anyone has even remembered to mandate its suppression.)

Early Criticisms of the Old ICEL

Though the NLC Propers could be used, the Ordinary of the Mass had to be ICEL. Criticisms of ICEL in the early days therefore often focussed on the texts of the Creed or the Eucharistic Prayers. Even so, this was in the days long before the first web browser was invented, and the reaction was slower than we are accustomed to now. People did complain about the translation, focussing on its banality and lack of a sense of the sacred. Latin Mass (even in the new rite) had become a rarity by the mid 1970s and so it required an effort to get hold of a Latin Missal to compare the texts. As more and more interested Catholics did so, there was a sense of outrage at what was missing, changed or simply invented. In 1979, Christopher Monckton, then Editor of the Universe, focussed the complaints of many of us in his widely influential paper for the Association of English Worship, published in this magazine (Dec 1979) as "Caught in the Act. A Conspiracy of Errors." (He compiled a list of over 400 such errors.)

The main point of his article was that the ICEL translation (of the Ordinary of the Mass) was not only banal, nor even simply erroneous; Monckton demonstrated that it was marred by systematic omissions, and systematic doctrinal defects. The words sanctus and beatus had been passed over in almost every place where they occur in the text. As he observed, "there was only one point at which the translators must have found it all but impossible to omit the word "Sanctus" and that is in the SANCTUS itself." They could hardly have expected the priest and people to say: "____,____,____," My own favourite example of desacralising is the translation of the text in the Roman Canon "accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas et venerabiles manus suas" which is properly translated in the new ICEL as "he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands." The old ICEL has "he took the cup."

Monckton also drew attention to the theologically grave problem of the text's playing-down of sacrificial language, eliminating the distinction between the offering made by the priest and that made by the people, and losing the notion of Christ as victim. The most glaring example is the phrase ''sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam" in the Roman Canon, which is simply omitted.

Ever since Monckton's article and others like it in the late seventies, it has been an open secret that the translation was bad, and needed to be replaced. Even at that time, with the text not six years old, the Chairman of ICEL indicated that it was to be subject to a careful and painstaking re-evaluation; it took eighteen years for a new text to be presented to the Holy See. By 1998, however, many things had changed: Pope John Paul's papacy had matured, and the Congregation for Divine Worship, after a series of other good prefects, was now run by Cardinal Estevez. In his letter to ICEL, the Cardinal gave 114 examples of specific flaws in the proposed text, saying that the list "cannot be considered in any way exhaustive." He specifically noted "It appears, indeed, consciously or unconsciously to promote a view of sacramental and ecclesiological theology that contrasts with the intentions of the Holy See." Among the many defects, he noted the dropping of the words sanctus and beatus: the "careful and painstaking" eighteen year re-evaluation did not seem to have achieved very much.

Before offering his cordial good wishes in Christ the Lord, Cardinal Estevez wrote:

"... this Congregation considers it may be helpful to recommend that there be a complete change of translators on this project and that a new, independent and definitive English version be made afresh from the Latin texts."

Not long afterwards, in 2001, the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam was issued, insisting that

"the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet."

The following year, ICEL was reconstituted with due acknowledgement of the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and the process of translation began for a third time. The growing use of the internet, especially in social networking, meant that through the debates of the US Bishops' Conference (commendably held in public session) the general Catholic public became increasingly aware of just what thinking was behind what was coming to be known by consensus as the "lame-duck translation", an expression popularised by Fr Zuhlsdorf who has spent many years analysing "What does the prayer really say?" both in his column for The Wanderer and on his popular blog. When Bishop Trautman of Erie complained about unfamiliar words being used, bloggers jokingly vied with each other to include the words "ineffable", "wrought" and "gibbet" into ordinary posts. The opposition to the more sacral language was characterised as objecting to "them fancy words."

A Great Relief for Priests and People

Now, after several decades, we finally have an accurate translation of the Roman Missal to use for the celebration of Mass. During the lead-up to its introduction, some of the liberal Catholic press has been acting in a way reminiscent of the "phony war" of 1939. They have not been issuing gas masks and practising air raid drills, but from the hysteria of some articles, you would think that extra first-aiders should be trained. I am not exaggerating here. The Tablet actually posted an article on its website in which the author suggested that asking children to say in The Confiteor "through my fault, through my fault, through my own most grievous fault" while beating their breasts, was a form of psychological child abuse. Wisely (perhaps realising that this foolish comment trivialised real child abuse) The Tablet took the article down.

Most ordinary Catholics who are still actually going to Mass will not be troubled by the changes to the text, except for stumbling a bit for the first few weeks and accidentally falling into the old ICEL from time to time. The priest can do a lot to help in the reception of this change. If he is obviously enthusiastic and positive, the people will be encouraged in their faith, and can benefit from the catechesis that he gives in his ordinary preaching, looking at topics like sacrifice, grace, humility, and the sacredness of the Liturgy, to give a few examples of doctrines that show out much more clearly in the new texts.

For the minority who take an active interest in the Liturgy, read Catholic articles and follow news within the Church, I suspect that the people who are delighted by the new ICEL will far outnumber those who are opposed to it. For priests who are faithful to the Church, and have been aware of the errors and deficiencies of the old ICEL, it will be a relief and a joy to be able to use a worthy text for the celebration of Mass in English. For the 27 years of my priestly life, I have been using a lame-duck text that dumbs down the theology of the Mass and prevents me from giving to God the reverence due to Him in the words of the prayers prescribed by the Church. I rejoice that the students I have taught, who are being ordained this year will begin their priestly ministry with a worthy text.

Unfortunately, there has been little progress on the question of copyright to the text, which belongs to the local Bishops' Conferences. The cards which have been produced by the major publishers have various problems because of conditions imposed by the National Liturgical Committee. They imply or state that the offertory prayers must be said out loud, that the sign of peace is compulsory, and that Holy Communion must be received standing. They are also unwieldy because of ICEL's insistence that the texts must be printed according to "sense lines." (This constraint also make the Missal itself waste acres of white space.) Last year, when the "phony war" ponderously urged elaborate preparation for priests to be able to use the new texts, I pointed out at one clergy meeting that I had done the preparation many years ago by taking English O-Level. The stubborn insistence on "sense lines" is surely a form of that "infantilisation" which was fostered by the collaborative ministry enthusiasts but is so decried nowadays.

Paradoxically, since Summorum Pontificum, it is easier to obtain high quality pdfs of the texts and music for the extraordinary form of the Mass and the Divine Office than for the ordinary form in English. There will undoubtedly be an underground movement to share electronic versions of the text so that booklets and leaflets can be produced and distributed on the internet free of charge. (There is already a text of the newly-translated Missal available on Wikispooks) It would make sense for ICEL and the English speaking Bishops' Conferences (or any one of them) or the Holy See itself to put an official version of the text out into the wild under a licence that allowed non-commercial copying with the caveat that the text itself should not be modified (it is in fact much easier to verify the integrity of an electronic text.) Hunting people down for copyright violations is a waste of time that could be better spent supporting the work done by enthusiastic Catholics free of charge for the love of God.

In a way, the liberals are right to fear the new (corrected) ICEL text. They do not want any change in the status quo because it will inevitably provide an opportunity to make other changes, most notably to the music that is used for the Mass. If parishes begin to recover the idea of a sung Mass, rather than a Mass at which things are sung, that will be a great improvement to the celebration of the Liturgy. Once bumped out of the groove in which we have been stuck for decades, it will be easier for parish priests to take up some of the reforms which have been encouraged gently by Pope Benedict, to be frightened no longer by traditional vestments and vessels for Mass, by the possibility of at least some celebrations of Mass being ad orientem, or by gently moving away from anti-liturgical informality.

During the decades in which we have been lumbered with the lame-duck translation, much has changed in the Church: some of the changes have ironically been a matter of people continuing to do the same thing. Those who as youngsters were attracted by the folk choir and have remained in it, can sometimes now look like the ageing rockers who play at teatime in seaside pavilions in the summer. They may still harbour the pious hope that young people will be attracted by matey liturgy and jolly tunes. The sad reality is that in most parishes there are hardly any young people left after the Confirmation course has finished. The ones who do remain will stay because either through a miracle or the providence of God they have received some formation in the faith: they want the truth and they want to worship God. Some school chaplains or diocesan youth centres have tried hard to move towards better and more catechetical music for worship but the danger remains that this is of transient appeal and can become quickly outdated and a source of amusement unlike the perennial sacred music of the Church which was actually mandated by Vatican II.

The debate over whether liturgy or catechesis is most important for saving the faith of the young has taken a new turn in the recent revival of the Liturgical movement. The Liturgy has been rediscovered as itself a source for theology, and therefore also for catechesis. This certainly does not mean that the Liturgy is primarily a school assembly: making it such is one of the problems that we have to overcome. Rather, the priest in his preaching, and the catechist in sacramental preparation can use the texts of the Liturgy to illustrate the faith. This will be much easier with the new (corrected) translation which succeeds in preserving the dogmatic content of the prayers. Shortly after the time of the publication of the lame-duck translation, Faith movement produced a pamphlet called "The Liturgy: a catechism of Catholic doctrine." This showed that even in what was a bad translation, the basic doctrines of the faith could be found in the text. Now everyone is talking about the opportunity for catechesis that the new text presents.

Important though this is, it must be accompanied by a recovery of the sacred in the Liturgy: especially in the celebration of Sunday Mass, and even more crucially in the celebration of the school Mass. Many active young Catholics have found the numinous in the usus antiquior and have become attached to it, much to the bewilderment of older Catholics who remember the heady days of the seventies with nostalgia. Whatever the process of mutual enrichment between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of Mass (as desired by Pope Benedict) will hold for the future, the present position of young Catholics is that they are going to keep or lose the faith through what they experience in the Mass celebrated at their parish and at their school. The new (corrected) translation offers us a definitive moment of action (the local centre of spirituality would doubtless call it kairos.) Archbishop Nichols told the clergy of Westminster on the 9th of June last, that "the Liturgy forms us, not us the Liturgy." I agree with him and would add that right now, we need to seize the opportunity to change more than simply the translation: clergy of orthodox faith who love the Church must take the risk of insisting that they will submit themselves to the Liturgy, eradicate informality, correct abuses and (if not literally then at least symbolically) turn towards the Lord. Whether in English or in Latin, we are in fact going up to the altar of God. And He is the one who gives joy to our youth.

Dear Bishop

Dear Bishop,

Is all this really necessary?

"Here we are being instructed by our bishop to remain standing when we return to our pew and remain standing until all have received. I know that the Mass is not a private devotion and a common posture is good, but I am wondering, can this be interpreted in the same way as the direction for receiving communion? While that direction is to stand and receive on the hand, we all have a right to receive on the tongue while kneeling. But then again, just because we have a right doesn't necessarily mean we should exercise that right. I do not know what I am going to do!" ...SW

"I myself will be kneeling after receiving, upon arrival at the pew. We have also heard we are to stand until all receive, but I will be following Cardinal Arinze on this one." ...CapeBretoner

I cannot tell you to disobey, but then, I doubt that the bishop has the authority to regulate you like this, regardless.. The Church is not some kind of communist boot camp. Go and receive Him, kneel if you choose, receive Him on your tongue and go back to your pew and quietly kneel in a corner at the back and ignore anyone who harasses you. I'm with Cardinal Arinze and Cape Bretoner on this one! --Vox.

"Why is it so important that everyone do the same thing? Myself, it means much to me to kneel after the Agnus Dei. And I don't want to stand around after receiving communion, waiting for everyone to receive. The story I get is that "standing is the way our culture shows respect" and "kneeling was for slaves back then". Our Bishop is wonderful. He is all for the new ways. I dare to disagree though and am starting to dread going to Mass because I am afraid...Thank you for getting all this info out to people. Maybe tolerance will prevail. I am not sure what I will do if someone complains about my kneeling. I've all ready let folks know where I stand (hah hah) on the "new postures". I hate disagreements but even more so I had being pushed around. I think it is beneath the dignity of the clergy to try to force people, especially older Catholics, to give up reverent liturgical practices that are dear to them."...Maria K.

Never "dread" going to Mass. On the other hand, if it is really that bad and a disturbance to your soul, then try to find a different parish. A priest friend once told me a story about his late well-known sister (a writer of some high regard in these matters who wrote the book to wake up Canadian about the liturgy and the crisis). It seems that she was praying once before the Blessed Sacrament and as she poured her heart out to Jesus with how much she was suffering because of the liturgical abuses, she heard and audible voice, "If I have to put up with it, so do you!" Blessed John Paul II quoted the Archangel Gabriel upon his elevation, "Do not be afraid." I would add "be strong" and calm and seek out a different parish if necessary. The "regulation" after communion is simply illogical and wrong. If you choose to kneel, then kneel. The bishop has no authority in this matter at that place. The GIRM does not give him the power to "regulate" at that point. It is silent on the matter. It is your choice and right to kneel.--Vox.

And may Toronto always be grateful for "laudable practice!"

Me too.

I know too as I was also there. But being five years older than Voris, I remember the plywood table set up one Sunday and a rather forlorn and sober looking Father Carroll being so out of place. Then at 13, I left. What Michael says in this video is true. It happened here in Toronto just like that. It happened everywhere...