Considering the GIRM II: Posture for Holy Communion

Some may think that standing for Holy Communion began with the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1970. For those of us over 50, the Novus Ordo is the "New, New Mass." We had the "New Mass" -the 1965 Roman Missal and it was then that standing began, though Holy Communion was still on the tongue and patens were still used. It was considered a vile abuse in Holland and Belgium where experimentation gave way to the almost universal dissent of commuion-in-the-hand prompting Pope Paul VI to issue Memoriale Domini which was promptly ignored and which he was too weak to enforce.
It was not long after this, and certainly even before 1970, that Communion Rails - the last remaining part of the Rood in the West, which in the Byzantine is the Iconostasis and in the Syriac the Veil, were by and large, removed and some rather sadly and unceremoniously ending up as parking curbs.

Truly, the Byzantine and Syriac manner of receiving the Eucharist is standing. In fact, they don't kneel at all in the Divine Liturgy or Qurbono as it is known in the Syriac Church.  It was in the west that kneeling became the norm as a response to heresy and doubt in the Real Presence - not so much a problem in either Eastern Churches. Along with this destruction of Communion Rails of course came the Magdalene moment of searching for the Tabernacle. It was a debate between the "dynamic" verses the "static" presence. We simple Catholics knew nothing of dynamic or static, only Real.

This debate still rages, though it is changing for the better as the generation that did all this dies off. They left few children literally or spiritually and in a decade's time they will be all be gone to their particular judgement or resting in nursing homes. It will be up to us to ensure that they are not euthanised even though they did not fight the early fight against the slaughter of the innocents as they were too busy with coke and pizza Masses. The churches will be emptier but they will be filled with Catholics who will strive for something better and they will be filled with fewer but holier and zealous young priests that are not masculine and not emasculated.

The facts are that no order from the Second Vatican Council ever provided for Communion Rails to be ripped out or Tabernacles to be displaced. This came later by "expert liturgists." Official documents referred to new constructioin and in fact, architectural or artistic significance was to be retained.

However, keeping these rails or barriers, as these experts would claim would have prevented the universal adoption of standing for Holy Communion and create a barrier to the Table. Despite this, individual Catholics chose to reject this posture and in its wisdom, Holy Mother Church issued a document called Redemptions Sacramentum in which, the Communicants right to not only receive communion kneeling was enshrined but the restating that Communion-on-the-tongue is the norm and always remains the universal law of the Church, notwithstanding what individula Ordinaries did in my town during SARS or H1N1. They were wrong, I said it then and I repeat it now, both of them.

So, what does the GIRM for Canada and other countries say?

160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants,  who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. In the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. When standing before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow of the head. When receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, they reverently join their hands; when receiving Holy Communion in the hand, they reverently open their hands placing one beneath the other, and they consume the host immediately upon receiving it.

Did you read that?

In Canada, the norm is standing as we know, but "individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling!"

A few other points in the paragraph above. "It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves." If you do this, stop. If you see it being done, file a complaint and refer to the paragraph in the GIRM.

Note this too: "When standing before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow of the head."

And this: "When receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, they reverently join their hands; when receiving Holy Communion in the hand, they reverently open their hands placing one beneath the other, and they consume the host immediately upon receiving it." This is so the Priest, or Deacon or EMHC if absolutely necessary knows how to approach you with the Host. But also be aware, you are to place one hand beneath the other (as a throne) and you "consume the host immediately upon receiving it" you do not walk away and pop Him in your mouth as if He is a nacho chip. You bring your hands to your mouth!

Of course, you should simply receive on the tongue and then all the EMHC would go away because they find it repulsive.

So, in the matter of kneeling for Holy Communion; unless the church has a communion rail which they promote and utilise and you are in the McDonald's line, then let common sense and charity prevail. If you choose to avail yourself of your right granted to you by Holy Mother Church do so at the end of the line anbe d humble about it.

But know this!


The priest cannot refuse you and the bishop cannot drag you to your feet nor can he have you arrested.

Now, you don't have to pay attention to me, but you might want to watch what the man who some day could be the first Pope from America has to say...or then again, it might be a bishop from Kazakhstan who has called for a new Syllabus of Errors.


Friends, every Catholic needs to read and study the GIRM.


Spread the Good News!

Considering the GIRM I: The Kyrie

In the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite the Kyrie is considered to be "nine-fold" that is three times Kyrie eleison, three times Christe eleison and three times Kyrie eleison. There are two times in the Roman Rite, Extraordinary and Ordinary that the people can proclaim in Greek, the other is on Good Friday with the Trisagion, Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, Hagios O Theos, Hagios Ischyros, Hagios Athanatos. This dear readers, is in Greek and is in the Graduale Romanum 1974 for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.


But, back to our Kyrie and the nine-fold.


The fabricators (a descriptive used in the Spirit of the Liturgy by Pope Benedict XVI) of the Novus Ordo Missae cut this to a simple response "six-fold." In doing so, they eliminated the awesome mystery of this penitential beseeching in its Trinitarian formula of three for the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity and the symbolism of the chanting of the Nine Choirs of Angels.


Consistently then, the result has been that "Gregorian" Kyries were modified as six-fold. But this was not always necessary. In fact, some of them cannot be done in six-fold as they were musically composed as nine-fold, they were not simple repetitions, for example the Kyrie from Missa Cum Jubilo, Mass IX. The former GIRM permitted this. In fact, the previously referred to Graduale Romanum for the Novus Ordo published in 1974 included this Kyrie. If it was not meant to be sung nine-fold, why as it included? For your information, the signatory in the GM was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the lead "fabricator!"


Let us look at what the new GIRM approved for use in Canada and elsewhere states with the point to which I wish to draw your attention in bold:


The Kyrie Eleison

52.       After the Penitential Act, the Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy), is always begun, unless it has already been part of the Penitential Act. Since it is a chant by which the faithful acclaim the Lord and implore his mercy, it is usually executed by everyone, that is to say, with the people and the choir or cantor taking part in it.


            Each acclamation is usually pronounced twice, though it is not to be excluded that it be repeated several times, by reason of the character of the various languages, as well as of the artistry of the music or of other circumstances. When the Kyrie is sung as a part of the Penitential Act, a “trope” precedes each acclamation.

Now, let us be clear. In a Read Mass, the six-fold Kyrie is the Law of the Church and the GIRM is liturgical law. But if the Kyrie is sung in Greek or in English (as there were some fine ones composed for 1965), these can be freely done.


Here then, is the Kyrie from Missa Cum Jubilo, Gregorian Mass IX.

The opposite of laudable.

A priest friend working in the Vatican has written to me a few times on the matter of kneeling during the Canon of the Mass. In Rome at least, even at St. Peter's Basilica, kneeling is only at the Consecration. This is consistent with the 1975 GIRM. In Poland which he recently visited and opined that "Poland will save the Church yet" they kneel from the end of the Sanctus to the end of the Memorial Acclamation, a practice that was asked for by the Canadian bishops but not approved by Rome.


Some have suggested that this whole thread or topic is boring.


Meanwhile, a reader in beautiful Newfoundland writes:

I just finished attending an Archdiocesan meeting on the new GIRM and the Archbishop has stated in no uncertain terms that even in parishes where they had the "laudable" practice of kneeling from from the Sanctus to Communion it will not be allowed. There will only be kneeling at the Consecration.

If the GIRM says this:

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

...then what does it mean if the practice is not "allowed?'


Is this important?


Is the corrected translation enough?


Will they ensure "sacred silence" with the same vigour?


Will the Archbishop of St. John's ensure that only "priests, deacons and instituted acolytes" preform the ritual ablutions...you know...doing the dishes?


And then there is this:

41. The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as  being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.

Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings.

Discuss.

How we Communicate

If you' ve not visited Rorate Caeli blog to read this post by New Catholic, then please do and read the comment box.


Send it to your Catholic friends and especially to priests.


Here is a sample:

Translation problems? Mass celebrated towards the people? Altar girls? Postures?


No, the greatest and gravest problem of the liturgy of the Latin Church - that is, of the "Ordinary form", or Mass of Paul VI - is one that transcends all this, even it is related to all of them: it is the way the Body of Christ is treated. That must be the very first issued tackled by an eventual true "reform of the reform", one that is set not by fleeting example, but by hard law.

If you receive Holy Communion in the hand, stop and stop it now!


It was wrong for Paul VI to allow this abomination. He should have outlawed what was a vile abuse and now you are participating in it.


Stop it now!

Not one penny!

With a "hat tip" to Mike for finding the post below -- More Idiocy from a Canadian Bishop -- on a reader or something, I have reposted it below. I had deleted it without intending to do so when cleaning up a few drafts.

The good Father in New Brunswick does not deserve this treatment at the hands of the Bishop of Bathurst.

...and speaking of bishops.

Today, at your church, there will be a second collection for the "Bishops of Canada." This collection goes to your diocese to offset the "tax" which the diocese (you) pays to the CCCB. If there is a shortage the diocese pays the total anyway.

So, why should we pay anything for the CCCB? They have set up another "hierarchy" between the Ordinary and the Pope and we have seen the results. No, not one penny for the CCCB and their Development and Peace or their not "too hard" Gloria.

Not one penny.

More idiocy from a Canadian Bishop!

by Vox Cantoris

For once, I am speechless.

BATHURST, New Brunswick, September 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic Diocese of Bathurst, New Brunswick has removed an elderly priest from active ministry after he caused a storm of controversy by denouncing homosexuality, cohabitation, and abortion in an August homily.

85-year-old Fr. Donat Gionet had retired to his home town of Caraquet in June to serve palliative care patients, and now laments that in his declining years he is being forced to celebrate Mass “in secret.”

Fr. Wesley Wade, the diocese’s vicar general, told Radio-Canada that Fr. Gionet’s comments were consistent with Church teaching, but lacked the proper “pastoral” sensitivity.

Read it all, here.

Here is the bishop's contact information:

Most Rev. (not in my mind!) Valéry Vienneau, Bishop of Bathurst
645, avenue Murray
C.P. 460
Bathurst, NB E2A 3Z4
Tel: (506) 546-1420
Fax: (506) 548-5565
E-mail: valeryv@nb.aibn.com

The GIRM for Canada!

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


So what now is the kneeling posture for Canada:

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


What will you do?

CCCB FAQ's -- More Drivel!

Alerted by an erudite reader we find these interesting FAQ's from the CCCB.

Let's have a look and a comment or two, shall we?

What is the date of implementation for the new edition of the Roman Missal?

The date of implementation of the new Missal will be the first Sunday of Advent 2011. The publications team here at the CCCB have done some remarkable work these past few months to make this possible. (Yes, only after they were told in February by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that they had no choice. They were trying to wait until a new "French" Roman Missal was complete as that was considered more important than our unity in the ROC (Rest of Canada) with the English-speaking world.)

Will the responses be the same as in the United States?

The responses at the Eucharist (Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,) will be the same for the entire English-speaking world, although we will have the proper Canadian spelling of some of the words. We are happy to report that you will be able to have your own copy of them by March - they will be published as part of Celebrate in Song, our new music and liturgy resource which is designed to supplement CBW III (Which we are still stuck with inclusive  language and all forced upon the unsuspecting Church in Canada by Raymond Lahey whose name is enshrined in every book, in every parish, in every pew as to a joyous reminder of the contribution of this "kind and gentle pastor.") in the era of the new Missal. Not only will we have the new responses, we will have three musical settings of the responses which we have commissioned by us for use in Canada. They are by Canadian composers (Which are the most detestable example of church music I've ever heard.) and it is my hope that they will become fairly standard in parishes (I doubt it, not even my Praise and Worship friends are that stupid--go ahead, ask as church musician what he or she really thinks of the garbage parishes are forced to pay for.) across the country. This way we will be able to feel at home in each others' churches. The chant setting from ICEL is also included for the same reason. (Well this is simply not true, they have not used the Gloria from the chant setting by ICEL which is to appear in ALL hymnbooks because Father Bill Burke deemed it "too hard" in a letter to me.)

What should parishes do to prepare for the new edition of the Roman Missal?

Fr. Burke of the National Liturgy Office (NLO) has been working tirelessly to prepare the clergy of the country for the new edition of the Roman Missal. He has done workshops from coast to coast to coast. It is our hope that the local clergy and diocesan offices will take a prominent role in the implementation process in our churches and schools, and so this training has been a huge part of the NLO strategy around the Missal. For your parish, consider the following:

A DVD with a teaching Mass has been approved for publication and should be available by the Fall. This could form part of an information evening held by parishes or deaneries

Fr. Bill’s workshop will form part of one of the catechetical resource DVD’s that we are preparing, and can be used in the same way

Music ministers: (There is no such thing as a "Music Minister" and this term needs to stop being used -- we are Directors of Music, Choir Directors or Schola Masters) cantors, organists, instrumentalists of all kinds, choirs, should start learning our new Canadian Mass settings in Celebrate in Song

In addition there are several other resources:

NLO has entered into an agreement with Novalis to prepare a Missal resource for youth which will be a unique resource for young people to learn about the Mass. ('cause they need to be patronised and talked down to, right?)

For all Catholics the Publications Service has published the ICEL resource, Become One Body One Spirit in Christ, which will help everyone better understand the new edition. (Yes, the Brits did this and they are so far ahead of us it is embarrassing to say nothing about the Americans.)

For priests, the Publications Service has made an agreement with World Library Publications to distribute a CD recording of the new translations of Eucharistic Prayers I-IV

All of these can help us to prepare for the new edition of the Roman Missal in our own communities.

I heard that there is a new translation of the Mass that is coming out. Is that true?

Yes, it is indeed true. Even though we often look to the Church for stability in this rapidly changing world, and although it’s not always easy to accept, the Church’s prayer and worship have also changed over time.

Following many years of work and consultations (see the following question for details), changes have been made to the Mass and its translation. As we are now at the point where we need to get ready to receive this new translation, a series of questions and answers will be presented in the next few months to offer a better understanding of the changes and to prepare for them.

Change is rarely easy (Well, ya sure didn't care about the change our parents and grandparents had to endure which they didn't ask for) and it doesn’t happen automatically. You might find the upcoming changes challenging. However, we invite everyone to accompany us in this series of articles with an open mind and an open heart. Let us ask the Holy Spirit to guide us and . . . together, let us enter into the dance! (Dance? Let us enter the dance? Who actually writes this stuff?)

Why are we getting a new translation?

In the 1960's, as the bishops of the world met for the Second Vatican Council, they called for a major revision of the rites of the Mass and opened the door to the celebration of Mass in the many languages used around the world. (Actually, in Sacrosanctam Concilium they said that no changes could be made unless it was for the good of the faithful; there were eleven requests made and all of these except one, the new Lectionary with its three year-cycle, were implemented by 1965. (Google Vox Cantoris 1965 Missal). The Novus Ordo Missae was never, ever imagined or contemplated by the Father of the Council. They asked for a minor "simplification of the rubrics" already underway by 1962 and an end to "repetitions" mostly in place by 1965. They never asked for a chopping or re-writing of Collects and Postcommunions or a virtual elimination of Propers or multiple options of Pentitential Rites or Canons (Eucharistic Prayers), these were all "manufactured" as affirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in The Spirit of the Liturgy. As for the vernacular languages, this was for those parts concerning the people, the Collects and Readings. Go ahead...look it up.)

In the years that followed, much work went into those revisions. The translation of Mass texts from Latin to all those languages proved to be a major task. (Again, this is not true and it is simplistic and grossly misleading. We always had a translation in our Missals. In 1965 we had a complete and approved English translation faithful to the Latin.) As time was pressing and it was important to make those translations available as soon as possible, a first translation was prepared, which did not pretend to be either perfect or permanent. (We already had a translation in 1965 of the 1570/1962 Roman Missal. They sure pretended that it was perfect and they used a method called "dynamic equivalence" to do it and they convinced a battered Pope to agree with it.) In February 1974 the first English translation for use in Canada was approved. (Yes, finally there was an approved "Sacramentary" in 1974 and from 1969 until then they used binders on the Altar and made it up as they went along).

Eventually, work began on a number of additions to the Mass and revisions to the translations. In 2001 new directions in the translation of texts from Latin were established by the Church and in March 2002, a new edition of the Order of Mass in Latin was published. (Yes, and ordered by Blessed John Paul II!)

Since then, great strides have been made to prepare faithful translations, to get the proper approvals and to make them available to all English speaking people in a timely fashion. (Eleven years is timely) Therefore, in the near future those changes will be implemented.

How will the new translation affect me?

When the new translation of the Mass comes about, it will affect all of us, although in different ways. Priests and deacons will need to adapt to the revised texts - some texts contain very subtle differences while others have been modified considerably. Therefore, everyone will need to listen so much more carefully and to hear differently. (And it will help you pray better and understand the Mass better and receive more grace because of it and therefore be a better Catholic, a better person and you will have a stronger family and build a better world; as Father Z says, "liturgy is the tip of the spear.")

Members of the assembly (Congregation!) will need to learn new or modified responses. This requires practice and patience. Music used during Mass (i.e.: “Glory to God”, “Holy, Holy”, etc.) will need to be adapted to the new texts, requiring that we learn new music. (And the Memorial Acclamation, so why force new Lamb of God and Kyrie's on people and frankly, the Somerville, Togni and Proulx Masses were all written for 1965 "hosts" and had to be adapted for 1970, so we can go back to the originals.)

Moreover, changes being brought to the Mass are not limited to spoken or sung texts. They also touch some actions and postures during the Mass. Therefore, we will need to learn them and the times during the Mass where they occur. (Yes, we will stand as soon as the priest says; "Pray brethern (brothers and sisters)" but the CCCB still wants to amend the kneeling posture and make it different from the U.S., Britain, Ontario, B.C. and the most traditional form but since they have not yet released the GIRM, we don't know what Rome has or has not approved.)

Where does the new translation come from?

Official texts of the Mass are promulgated by the “Holy See” (the official authority of the Roman Catholic Church). (Damn near spilt my coffee on that one.) A Latin edition (editio typica) is prepared and published under the title Missale Romanum (Sacramentary or Roman Missal in English). (No! Missale Romanum means Roman Missal, not Sacramentary--sorry, you'll have to have ROMAN on the cover this time girls.)

Then, the Conference of Bishops of each country (or group of countries) in the world is responsible to prepare proper translations in the language(s) used in its country and to get them approved by the Holy See. Usually, a team of experts and bishops from various countries using the same language work together on such an enormous task. The International Committee on English in the Liturgy (usually referred to as ICEL) is responsible for the English translations. (And they did a fine job) All the bishops of participating countries then get to critique, modify and approve that work. (And they've delayed and delayed and delayed it and some, such as Bishop Trautman of Erie, have fought it.) Each Conference of Bishops also prepares a certain number of local adaptations as required by the Holy See or as requested by the bishops. Then, each Conference of Bishops must approve the translations and adaptations for use in its country/region, and present them to the Holy See for final approval. (There are certain Saints for example, not on the Universal Calendar but who pertain to a country or region.)

These steps led to the new Mass translation that we will be getting.

Do we have to use the new translations?

This kind of question is always hard to answer! A hard-line answer would simply be: “Of course we have to!” (DUH, YES, THAT IS THE ANSWER!) However, we are invited to enter into the spirit of the law and not only its letter. (AND WHAT SPIRIT MIGHT THAT BE?)

The changes being brought to the Mass apply to Roman Catholics around the world. Although the number and the nature of the changes will differ from one language to another, (No this is not true. All national conferences through their ICEL equivalents must conform to the THIRD TYPICAL EDITION and be translated in accordance with LITURGIAM AUTHENTICUM. Because English is the new "LINGUA FRANCA" and it is from English that many other translations are made the English must be particularly correct and accurate. This was mandated by the "OFFICIAL AUTHORITY..") in all of this we need to be aware that the intention stems from a constant concern to maintain the unity of our faith and worship within the whole Church. Yet, there remains a provision for creativity and adaptations which require a spirit that respects the whole celebration and the universality of the Church. Unity doesn’t always involve uniformity, but does require concerted effort and a common heart.

Are we going back to Latin?

The vernacular will most certainly continue to be used as the language of worship as established by the Second Vatican Council (No; Wrong again! Latin is and remains the first language of choice for the Mass. The Novus Ordo Missae of 1970 can always be celebrated in Latin. The Mass, celebrated in the vernacular can always have Latin Gregorian music or polyphonic motets or hymns in Latin -- why do they continue to mislead?) and reaffirmed by the NEW General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The Preamble to GIRM (2008) states in paragraph 12: “The eagerness with which this measure (use of the vernacular) was everywhere received has certainly been so great that it has led under the guidance of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, so that the people may more fully participate. SACROSANCTAM CONCILIUM, THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY AT THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL STATED THAT "LATIN IS TO BE PRESERVED" THAT THE "VERNACULAR, MAY BE USED "AND THAT "GREGORIAN CHANT HAS PRIDE OF PLACE."

Who initiated the change of translation?

In response to concerns expressed by local Bishops’ Conferences, the Congregation for Divine Worship initiated a period of study and reflection upon the current translations being used throughout the universal church. (Again, this is not true. ICEL was instructed by its members, the English speaking Bishops' Conferences, to prepare a new translation because they fundamentally new of the problems. This was completed in 1988 and rejected by the  "OFFICIAL AUTHORITY." It was rejected for two reasons; First, it was still not an adequate translation; and second, the Holy Father knew he was going to promulgate a new Edition and instruct then on how it was to be translated.) This period resulted in the document entitled Liturgiam Authenticum (2001) in which specific guidelines were established for all future translations from Latin to the vernacular.

The International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) in collaboration with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, following a long period of intense study and reflection, established a General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and the resulting new translation of the Ordo Missae (Order of Mass) for the Canadian Church. (There is no "Canadian Church" there is the Church in Canada!) These documents were then submitted to the Congregation of Divine Worship for approval.

I thought they were done with changes!!! Why more changes now?

In the years following the Second Vatican Council, the urgency with which texts had to be translated from Latin to the vernacular languages resulted in new texts that did not always convey the full meaning of the original Latin text and omitted some very rich scriptural and patristic images.(Yes, this is true but it had nothing to do with "urgency." (This is grossly misleading and I'm tired of hearing it, it was a conspiracy to change the meaning...why else would you translate "pro multis" which means "for many" as "for all" when the Latin expression "for all" exists and it is "pro omnibus!" It was a zeitgeist that harmed our belief and the truth of Our LORD's words in scripture.) Consequently, certain key responses and prayers have now been re-translated to better express a clearer understanding of the original text. This has resulted in a new Roman Missal (Ordo Missae) (Ordo Missae means Order of Mass.-- who wrote this??? ) which is to be used during all liturgical celebrations in the Roman Rite.

The changes initiated by the Second Vatican Council are on-going. Therefore, in a Church that is alive with the Holy Spirit, we can expect that the process of change will always be present.

Copyright © 2011 Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
2500 Don Reid Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 2J2 Canada

Now you know why bloggers are necessary.

You're welcome.

More on the CCCB Gloria Chant "lite" Missal Mess

Thanks to a link from a series of comments on The Chant Cafe about the wretched Mass settings which we will be experiencing in Celebrate in Song we find this written about the Altar Missal:

For the chant setting of the Mass we have used the same settings as found in Celebrate in Song. These settings, specially the Glory to God in the highest and the Creed have been the most commonly used chant settings in Canada for a long time, so it seemed wise to keep them. The preface dialogue will probably sound new to Canadian ears, but it has been provided by ICEL and is a traditional form, just not the one we have been used to.

I've been in church music for over 25 years and never heard that Anonymous "chant" Gloria sung before. I'm old enough to remember the 1965 Missal and I don't recall it. We sang Somerville and one other, there was no "chant-like" or "lite" version then.

So, not only does the Father Bill Burke, Msgr. Murray Kroetch and Msgr. Powers think you're too stupid to learn the actual Roman Missal Gloria, they think that our priests are too stupid two!

Yes, Canada's expert liturgist wrote me to say that the National Liturgical Commission felt that the right Gloria was "too hard."

How did they get away with this?

Oh, the same way that they got away with the Winnipeg Statement and the NRSV Lectionary.

They dissented.

And where's the GIRM?

Run out of Town

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Renovations'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program dropped

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not bad for a priestly career eh?

Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic, Requiescat in pace

A nice letter from Madrid

I met Thomas Rosica sometime around 1997 whilst he was at the Newman Centre in Toronto. I was asked to assist another musician in the teaching of Gregorian chant. The meeting with him was unremarkable and it occurred once when he hired me and others to sing a black-tie concert just after Christmas for some special guests. This was in addition to the Saturday afternoon chant classes.

In 2011, I wrote to complain about his public comments criticizing Catholics as "extremists" and "Taliban Catholics." The email went to info@saltandlighttv.org. It was not too many hours after, an insulting and degrading response came from him. Over the next month, I received more than a dozen emails that were derogatory, insulting, demeaning, and one that was potentially threatening to my livelihood. It stopped when I wrote him and warned him that any continuous harassment from him would result in an action on my part to stop him.

Months later, out of the blue, without contact in five months and without provocation and whilst in Madrid at World Youth Day with Pope Benedict XVI, he found the time and considered me important enough that he should write again.

I responded and advised him that I would be filing an official complaint against him with the Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of Toronto and the Congregation of St. Basil; and, that his email would be published on this blog in an effort to stop the continuous harassment.

Here is that email, word for work with only my personal address removed.

From: Thomas Rosica [rosica@saltandlighttv.org]
Subject: Voris' TV exposed for what it is
To: -----.-----@------.com                                                                                
Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011, 2:36 PM
Dear David,
For all your chant and rant, you obviously have very poor judgment in those you prop up as your gods... and those with whom you enjoy being photographed!
Read this story below which has broken in the news today as Mr. Voris is exposed for what he is... and isn't.
I beg the Holy Spirit to open your eyes, heart and mind to the Truth, not the myth you are pushing as the real Church, the "real" Catholic TV, the real nonsense.
God bless you... from Madrid.
Fr. Rosica

Una Voce Toronto Choir

Over the last few months, Una Voce Toronto has been promoting and organizing the holy Mass on specific feast days in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in Toronto.

On Corpus Christi at St. Mark's over 225 attended a Missa Solemnis and a few evenings ago on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary over 375 attended the Missa Cantata.

With the direction of the Board of Una Voce Toronto, Vox is forming the Una Voce Toronto Choir to be available for various Masses which we sponsor over the course of the year.

The next are:

September 14, Holy Cross in Mississauga
November 1, All Saints in Etobicoke
December 8, Immaculate Conception in Richmond Hill

The music programs will include the Gregorian Chant Propers, Gregorian Ordinaries for Mass IV Cunctipotens Genitor Deus, Mass VII Missa de Angelis, Mass IX Cum Jubilo and the Requiem Mass. Polyphonic Masses will include the Mass for Three Voices by William Byrd and the Missa Salve Regina by Christoph Dalitz with motets by Palestrina, Arcadelt and others as part of the preliminary plan.

Choir practices will be every Tuesday beginning in September at a central location.

For more information:

unavocetoronto@gmail.com

The Latin Mass and one priest's 'science fiction'

On this early Sunday morning, I found this in my inbox from Matt C. Abbott:

Matt C. Abbott column

The Latin Mass and one priest's 'science fiction'

Matt C. Abbott

Matt C. Abbott
August 14, 2011

In a recent parish bulletin, Father Bill Conway, pastor of Divine Savior Parish in the Diocese of Joliet, Ill., wrote (excerpted and slightly edited; click here to see the bulletin):

It is worth one's time to consider what some of the Church's leading theologians at the Second Vatican Council thought and wrote concerning the Eucharist and liturgy. In recent years one hears some speaking of the role of the priest in the liturgy as acting in persona Christi ('in the person of Christ'). My fear with such language is that it may have the effect of clericalizing the celebration of the Eucharist, making the assembly once again a passive observer....

While I respect the decision of the Holy Father to permit the extraordinary rite of the Tridentine Mass (please note 'extraordinary'), my criticism of this form is that by the very manner of its celebration it renders the role of the laity to being little more than onlooker. In fact, it was precisely because of this that the Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated the reform of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Mass: 'In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else (#14).'

Phrases such as in persona Christi [and] ad orientem, I believe, run contrary not only to the spirit of Vatican II but to the very tradition of the Church. Jesus did not celebrate the Last Supper with His back to the apostles (ad orientem) but rather reclined at table with them....

I asked Father John Trigilio Jr., president of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, to comment on Father Conway's assertions. Father Trigilio, as he has done on previous occasions, graciously provided me with the following response:

Father Conway needs to reread the actual texts of the Second Vatican Council as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. His Eucharistic theology is interesting, but not Catholic. If he has a problem with the notion of 'in persona Christi,' then he has a problem with Holy Mother Church.

The conciliar document Presbyterorum Ordinis had this to say about the phrase 'in persona Christi' in relationship to the priesthood: 'Priests act especially in the person of Christ as ministers of holy things, particularly in the Sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifice of Christ who gave Himself for the sanctification of men.'

'Thirty years later, the Catechism of the Catholic Church reaffirms this teaching:


'It is in representing [Christ] that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer.' (1348)

'Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.' (1411)


Lex orandi, lex credendi. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass embodies what Catholicism believes about the Holy Eucharist. The teachings on the ministerial priesthood and on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are embodied in how the Mass is celebrated. What we believe and how we worship are integrally and organically connected.

The congregation does not consecrate bread and wine. The common priesthood of the baptized faithful does not have the power to transubstantiate bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The ordained ministerial priesthood alone acts in persona Christi and consecrates bread and wine into the Real Presence for the sake of the people of God. Needing to be spiritually fed, the priest, like Moses of old, provided food for the journey. The manna given in church is the Precious Body and Blood of Christ. The people receive and are fed. The priest is the one who provides and then feeds the people the bread from Heaven.

The faithful participate in the sacrifice by their offering of themselves. This is why the English translation of the Roman Missal is being corrected to have the priest say at the preparation of the gifts: 'Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.' Previously, the English said 'our sacrifice' even though the Latin was always ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium so as to distinguish the sacrifice of the priest (who acts in persona Christi as an 'alter Christus') from the sacrifice of the faithful.

Divine worship and Church doctrine coincide and correspond with one another. A theology based on the premise that the congregation or the common priesthood of the baptized consecrates the bread and wine at Mass is not Catholic (and certainly not Eastern Orthodox, either). What also worries me is the one-liner in Father Conway's bulletin: 'Would that those who wish to restrict or limit the presence and active participation of women in the liturgy take heed.'

Sounds dangerously close to a heretical notion some dissident priests — and one or two nutty bishops — have been recently espousing. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ended the debate once and for all. It is an infallible teaching of the Church that only baptized males can be ordained. It is also infallible teaching that only the priest consecrates the bread and wine at Mass.

I suggest that [Father Conway] get some remedial catechesis so he can better instruct his flock on what the Church truly teaches as opposed to his own personal theories, which are more akin to science fiction than divinely-revealed truth.

Responding to the same commentary, Susan Gorski of Illinois sent the following (edited) email to Father Conway:

'I write to you out of concern for your commentary about acting 'in persona Christi' in your July 31 bulletin. You write about your fears and you criticized a form of worship that is centuries old. Clericalizing the celebration of the Eucharist? I thought it required a priest to consecrate the host into the Body and Blood of our Divine Lord; is this no longer true? Do you openly express that you think the pope was wrong? Do you doubt transubstantiation?

'You criticize the extraordinary form of the Mass as though it demotes humanity and relegates them to mere onlookers; but that is not true. In the Tridentine rite, everyone participates in the worship of God as led by the priest by intelligently and reverently praying the Mass.

'The blurring of the distinction and dignity that is the institutional priesthood appears to be a desire to dissolve the priesthood entirely. One of the exact titles of the papacy is Servus Servorum, or servant of the servants. This is an indicator of the responsibility you hold as a priest for the care of the souls in your charge.

'Are you to be a shepherd of the flock, or a hireling that runs away when the going gets difficult? This is a major difference between a priest and a lay minster. Are there wolves out there ready to scatter the flock? Perhaps you do not believe in an actual devil. If you do not believe in the devil, then who is doing his work now? Is there not evil in this world that is beyond the scope of social justice, or is that all there is?

'I've heard a number of priests in the Diocese of Joliet say they believe that salvation of souls is achievable through social justice — and they do not believe that the most important work of the priest is the salvation of souls through the sacraments. They feel salvation comes mostly or entirely through social justice; but this is only a very small portion of their priestly responsibility.

'In the Traditional rite, the priest leads the people in worship of God and the people follow in worship to God. The priest is a servant of the people by being a servant to God first. He is to uphold the faith, he is to care for his flock, and if he should lose one of them, he should go out and search until he finds the lost sheep. This is the traditional priesthood.

'Priests' hands are anointed for a reason. He is not a hireling; he is married to the Church and is to be her defender. So why do you question the teaching of the Magisterium on in persona Christi? Why do you fear it? Do you doubt your faith? This is what I read when I read your column in the bulletin. Sharing that doubt and fear with your flock means their shepherd isn't comfortable upholding the teachings of the Church.

'I am praying for you, Father Conway.'

---

Matt C. Abbott is a Catholic columnist with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communication, Media and Theatre from Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago, and an Associate in Applied Science degree in Business Management from Triton College in River Grove, Ill. He has worked in the right-to-life movement and is a published writer focused on Catholic and social issues. He can be reached at mattcabbott@gmail.com.

(Note: I welcome thoughtful feedback from readers. If you want our correspondence to remain confidential, please specify as such in your initial e-mail to me. However, I reserve the right to forward and/or publish e-mails — complete with e-mail addresses — that are accusatory, insulting or threatening in nature, even if said e-mails are marked confidential. Also, for subscribers to my column, please e-mail me directly instead of simply hitting "Reply" to the e-mail sent to you by the RenewAmerica site. Thank you and God bless!)

© Copyright 2011 by Matt C. Abbott
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110814

Linda Gibbons: Canada's Prisoner of Conscience

The law is an ass.

By John Jalsevac
TORONTO, Ontario, August 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Yesterday, I once again filmed and photographed Linda Gibbons being arrested for doing nothing more than peacefully trying to convince women entering an abortion clinic to not make the same mistake she herself made years ago. Since Linda’s first arrest in 1994 I have covered the story of her arrests again and again. In 1999, I was also arrested by out-of-control police officers directed by a sheriff who also seemed to be in a cozy relationship with abortion center staff. Eight months later the phony charge was dropped.
Yesterday, however, seemed different and unreal. (See video)
The officers and the sheriff were again going through the usual required motions, but this time they seemed confused about how to justify a law enforcement contingent of 6 police officers and 2 sheriffs for this situation. The quiet, passive, soft spoken woman of conscience was obviously no danger to anyone. The severity of the penalties in the injunction, which she has endured for years, is an embarrassment to anyone of reason.
Read the rest here.
Here is the dangerous woman arrested by such brave Toronto police doing the bidding of a corrupt Crown and murderous so-called, doctors and nurses:

THIS CONTINUING OUTRAGE IN CANADA MUST END!

Walking Pilgrimage to Our Lady of the Cape

**Announcing**

A 3-day Walking Pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of the Cape, Quebec
Saturday 3rd to Monday 5th September 2011
(An ‘Una-Voce Toronto’ sponsored event)
Transportation from Toronto to Pilgrimage
Bus Departs Toronto at 12:00 noon on Friday September 2nd. Bus departs Shrine for
Toronto at 3pm on Monday 5th.
Transportation Cost: ~$85 Pilgrimage Registration Cost: $75
More Information:
Patrick: Email: mcloughlin.patrick (at) gmail (dot) com
Ken: Email: ken.bradley (at) weighhouse (dot)com


Marie Reine du Canada, (click here for their Facebook event page) a lay-led apostolate of St. Clement Parish, Ottawa, organizes the annual three-day 100 km pilgrimage on foot from Saint-Joseph-de-Lanoraie to Notre-Dame-du-Cap shrine at Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Que. It is 3 days of prayer, Penance, Fraternal Charity and many graces. A pilgrimage is a journey made to a holy place or shrine for the sanctification of the pilgrim; with the purpose of venerating a saint or martyr associated with the site; to pray to God; to ask for supernatural aid; to give thanks for favours received; or to discharge a religious obligation. The arduous journey, offered joyfully to God, represents our spiritual pilgrimage to the Heavenly City.

Mass is celebrated each day of the pilgrimage in the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite, the traditional liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has expressed the desire that the Tridentine Latin Mass according to the 1962 Missal of Blessed Pope John XIII should flourish and continue to enrich our spiritual lives, particularly among the young. Our chaplains are priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter, canonically established by Pope John Paul II in 1988.

While walking each day, we pray the Rosary (in French and Latin) and Sing from a pilgrimage program book provided to each pilgrim. In late evening we pray Compline with the priests. The churches we visit along the route are truly spectacular by Canadian standards. Built in the 19th and early 20th century, they show the vibrancy of the faith that once was a large part of Quebec's identity. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated in parish churches along the route -- in Berthierville, Yamachiche, and in the historic Small Shrine of Our Lady of the Cape at Cap de la Madeleine -- with the blessing of the Bishops of Joliette and of Trois-Rivieres, and the local parish priests. Two priests are normally available to hear confessions in French and English, throughout the pilgrimage, en route, in camp or before mass.
http://www.marie-reine.ca/registration.html

What to Bring

1. Well-used, broken-in footwear is recommended. It's a good idea to double up on socks to reduce the likelihood of blisters; that's what the guy at the front does.
2. Very basic (but good) meals are provided. They consist of bread with jam etc. and coffee or hot chocolate at breakfast; bread and water at lunch; the same at dinner, plus hot soup. It is strongly recommended to bring your own food as well, trail mix, fruit, granola bars and other energy food to fill the gap and share with others. Do not bring food that requires heating; as there are no cooking facilities.

3. Ample bottled water is provided but you may wish to bring a few juice boxes.
4. Bring an insulated mug or thermos to hold hot beverages in the morning and soup in the evening.
5. Your heavy luggage, such as tents, sleeping bags, and duffel bags with clothing, will be moved by a truck driven by the Worker Pilgrims of the St. Joseph Chapter.
6. Some pilgrims like to have a day pack (small backpack) in which to carry sunscreen, a hat, a poncho or rain-jacket, and an extra bottle of water. It should be as light as possible since you will carry it all day.
7. The only banners permitted are those with a patron saint or parish symbol. No slogans, signs, or 'organizational' banners are allowed.
8. You will be provided with a booklet containing the Mass with Propers for the three days. No need to bring a Missal.
9. The spirit of pilgrimage: Your Chapter will be your "family" for the three-day walk.

Each pilgrim marches, sings and prays with as much fortitude as personal stamina will allow, maintaining appropriate decorum and deportment throughout. In the spirit of sacrifice and of charity you are urged to be attentive to your fellow pilgrims, assisting and encouraging those who are suffering, discouraged or more weary than yourself.