From the new and improved ICEL

A Facebook friend posted a column by Father Raymond J. de Souza in the Catholic Register. In a manner we've come to appreciate from Father Z, Father de Souza remnds us what the prayer really says.

This coming Sunday, the Fourth Sunday of Advent has a very special Collect in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite

Last year and for the forty-one years before, in the Novus Ordo Missae, this is what we heard:

Lord,
Fill our hearts with your love,
and as you revealed to us by an angel
the coming of your Son as man,
so lead us through His suffering and death
to the glory of His resurrection,
for He lives and reigns…

This Sunday coming, we will hear this:

Pour forth, we beseech you, O Lord,
your grace into our hearts,
that we, to whom the Incarnation of Christ your Son
was made known by the message of an Angel,
may by His Passion and Cross
be brought to the glory of the Resurrection.
Who lives and reigns…

Does it sound familiar?

It should as it is commonly known as the Angelus Prayer said three times a day.

What the translators at ICEL did to the Mass in English and us was a crime and a pretty blatant one at that, too!

That Blessed John Paul II rectified this not only with the Third Typical Edtion of the Roman Missal but more importantly, Liturgiam Authenticum and the Vox Clara Commission is one more reason why he his Blessed.

How many more nice surprises in the new Roman Missal are in store for us?

Scarboro Foreign Mission Syncretism

One post below is the evidence of liturgical abuse of the Holy Mass in the new Roman Missal translation by the Superior General of the Scarboro Foreign Missions, once known as the China Mission" a Society of Apostolic Life in the Archdiocese of Toronto.

Based on their infamous "Golden Rule" poster where Catholicism is just one of a number of options, what else can we expect?

I wonder what Monsignor Fraser would think?



"The Golden Rule" poster promulgated by the Scarboro Foreign Missions

"For All" or "For Many"...whatever

I have said it before and I will say it again.

A corrected translation is not enough.

Why does this priest change the words of the Opening Greeting, the Penitential Rite, the Offertory, the Consecration?

He chooses not to say "for many" but does not say "for all" just, "for you."
We have a mixing of the old and new.When is this going to end?

Why does Salt + Light TV which broadcasts this daily, not deal with this problem?  Can they even? I appreciate that this is again, not a Salt + Light production but surely over the years, they've known about this kind of liturgical carelessness and innovation. I feel for them; they need to broadcast the Mass and they buy it from the National Catholic Broadcasting Council.

Well, who exactly are they?

The priest here is Father Jack Lynch, Superior General of the Scarboro Foreign Missions once known as the China Mission.

Father Lynch, this is causing great distress amongst the faithful, read the comments on Youtube. This is a against Sacrosanctam Concilium the teachings of Blessed John Paul II and the GIRM. Please stop changing the words. Please celebrate the Mass according to the words.

The one above, the first week of the new Roman Missal was no mistake or accident. He does it again below:

jlynch@scarboromissions.ca

National Catholic Broadcasting Council

1-888-383-6277

Salt + Light Your Catholic Channel of Hope

(416) 971-5353 or toll free 1-888-302-7181

52. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate. 

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality. Blessed John Paul II, ENCYCLICAL LETTERECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

Why are "trads" so ignorant and nasty?

While this blog has often been critical of many actions in the liturgy particularly the manner in which the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is often celebrated, this time my attention is going to be turned in a different direction.

Do we go to Mass to worship and pray or do we go to make a fuss to others about little things?

Many of us have been bothered by liturgical abuse in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The correct response is to note it and deal with it after Mass with the priest or bishop. On the other hand, you can do what I've often done, get up and leave.

However, this little column is going to be a little different from what is usually posted here because it needs to be said and that is liturgical abuse by the laity in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. But first, let me rant a little more so you get the picture of where I am coming from.

Some people who attend the Traditional Latin Mass can try ones patience.

Now, I have never considered myself a "Trad" or a "Traditionalist," someone has even had the temerity to label me a "Neo-Cath." Another labelled me as having "modernistic tendencies." Other have said that I am  a "Trad" and other that I am not "Trad" enough.

Well, they can think whatever they want, I am a Catholic.

But while these labels are rather unfortunate, I'm going to nevertheless, use one.

"Trads" can be a nasty group and give the cause a bad name.

Last night in Toronto a beautiful Mass was held for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was a Missa Solemnis at St. Lawrence the Martyr in Toronto. The three Sacred Ministers were joined by three priests "in choro." The Servers were excellent as usual and the organist and choir were splendid.

It's the cranks that show up that are the problem.

So, let me rant because this is my blog.

1. Look friends, many people that come to these Masses are first timers. If they don't read the note in the liturgical handout about not singing the Pater Noster and they sing it, so what? But when you "trads" all go sssshhhhhh what you did was actually a vile intrusion on the Holy Mass. They acted in singing out of innocent ignorance, you acted out of rudeness, malice and what you did was a debasement of the liturgy. Stop it! What you "trads" did was a liturgical abuse.

2. Gothic Vestments are NOT NOVUS ORDO. They are called "Gothic" for a reason. In fact, the conical style "Novus Ordo" vestment as you refer it is actually of more ancient use than the "Roman" or "Fiddleback." Now, stop the whining about these little things and smarten up.

3. Artwork that shows the Blessed Virgin Mary's hair in paintings of the Immaculate Conception are not "Vatican II" and do not indicate that I am a "modernist." Until the puritanical Victorian 19th century with its feminine featured Jesus and its burka clad young Virgin and the über-puritanical attitude of you 21st century "Trads" the Immaculate Conception was portrayed as a pre-pubescent girl, a young virgin and without a veil as in the post two below this one which is a more recent rendition of the style of the many in the same style from the 15th century onward.

4. A Read Mass (Missa Lecta) with Dialogue is not a "Novus Ordo" invention. Nor is standing for the Pater Noster and the Postcommunion a "Novus Ordo" invention. The Church has desired that the people respond to the priest even though you have your preference for absolute silence. This is not where we are now or where the restoration will be. So you can drop this paranoia about NovusOrdoIsms. This is not a liturgical experiment or innovation. Read the rubrics!

You would think that these "trads" would be overjoyed with what has been happening since Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum and the recent Universae Ecclesiae.
As an example, when was the last time a Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite was offered in the Archdiocese of Toronto before last night? How about over 40 years ago!

Now behave yourself and be joyful for what has been accomplished, if you can be.


Some "trads" are really an offering up.


There, I feel better now.

More on St. Michael's Cathedral Music

A few weeks ago, I posted an article about changes at the Cathedral in Toronto over some unfortunate tinkering to the sacred music program provided by St. Michael's Choir School. Dorothy Cummings Maclean has written a feature in the Catholic Register on the Cathedral and the Choir School. (N.B. the picture embedded in the online edition is an error and is actually of Notre Dame Basilica Cathedral, Ottawa.)

An ancient treasure chest of music

Written by Dorothy Cummings McLean

Living as I do across the Atlantic Ocean, I still manage to keep abreast of events in Toronto. The Internet is like a seashell, sighing in my ear.

The most recent news is that St. Michael’s Cathedral is altering the order of its famous music, provided since 1937 by St. Michael’s Choir School.

Please visit the Catholic Register to read the whole article.

Dorothy Cummings McLean originally from Willowdale in Toronto now lives with her husband in Edinburgh,, Scotland where she attends the parish administered by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. Her brother attended St. Michael's Choir School and there she developed her love of the liturgy and sacred music.  She is the author of the blog Seraphic Singles and the book of the same name; and the blog Seraphic Goes to Scotland.

We did not know each other at the time, but we both attended St. Michael's Cathedral in the 1980's. Me, as a returning Catholic and she as the sister of a choir boy.

The result of course, was the same.

O Mary, conceived without sin...

You are all beautiful, Mary,
and the original stain is not in you.
Your clothing is white as snow,

and your face is like the sun.
You are all beautiful, Mary,
and the original stain is not in you.
You are the glory of Jerusalem,
you are the joy of Israel,
you give honour to our people.
You are all beautiful, Mary

Missa Solemnis in Toronto - Immaculate Conception

A Solemn High Mass (Missa Solemnis) will be held in Toronto on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary this Thursday, December 8 at 7:30PM.

The Mass will be celebrated at St. Lawrence the Martyr Scarborough at 2011 Lawrence Avenue East, just west of Kennedy Road on the north side. The Mass is sponsored by Una Voce Toronto and a reception will follow in the Church Hall. More infomration is here and here on Facebook.

The Liturgical progrma of Sacred Music includes:

Organ Prelude: Alvus Tumescit Virgo - Michael Praetorius (1571-1621)

Processional Hymn: The God Whom Earth and See and Sky Quem terra, pontus, aethera -Venantius Fortunatus, 539-609
Missa cum Jubilo-Gregorian Mass IX
Credo III
Gregorian Chant Propers - Liber Usualis
Ave  Maria - Jacques Arcadelt-Pierre-Louis Dietsch
Jesu Rex Admirablis - Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
Alma Redemptoris Mater - Tonus Simplex
Immaculate Mary - Lourdes Hymn
Organ postlude: Ricercar pro Tempore Adventus super Initium Cantilenae: Ave Maria klare - J.K.F. Fischer  1656 - 1746 

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.