Toronto Catholic Register: op-ed attack on Archbp. Ranjith and Benedict XVI

A reader alerted me to this article in the Catholic paper of the Archdiocese of Toronto.  The author is the former edition of this paper.  I am told he was also an associate of retired Bp. Remi do Roo, who celebrates puppet Masses for Call to Action

Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1671/852/

Don’t step back on Vatican II reforms
Friday, 28 March 2008

Written by Bernard Daly, Catholic Register Special,

Recently it would appear that top Vatican officials are joining the attack on liturgy changes approved by Pope Paul VI after the Second Vatican Council.  [Right away we get the idea that these "Vatican officials" are probably "bad men".]

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, challenges widespread use of the vernacular, priests facing the people and communion in the hand.  [A may God give him health and length of days for that!]

In a June, 25, 2006, interview with La Croix daily newspaper in Paris, Ranjith’s target was the full use of the vernacular language at Mass and turned altars. More recently, in his preface to a book by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, Ranjith questions communion in the hand[May God shine His light upon them.]

He argues that these changes are not approved by the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This of course is true. The constitution deals with general principles. Paul VI slowly approved specific changes after the council closed in December 1965.  [Okay… so if we are going to be faithful to the documents of the Church, we really should read them and then be faithful to them.  No where will you find a document that abolishes Latin as the liturgical language of the Church.  Furthermore, the Church permitted Communion in the hand as an aberration, a variation from the norm which is on the tongue.  Also, altars ad orientem remain the standard, the norm, if you read the rubrics carefully.  The author here seems to be saying "don’t bother me with the facts, Archbp. Ranjith is … is… is… doing something bad!]

Ranjith often notes [correctly] that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, made similar points in a foreword to a 2003 book by the English Oratorian U.M. Lang. [And not only there.] Then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “To the ordinary churchgoer, the two most obvious effects of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council seem to be the disappearance of Latin and the turning of the altars towards the people. Those who read the relevant texts will be astonished to learn that neither is in fact found in the decrees of the council.”  [Unbelievable.  He leaves aside entirely Ratzinger’s reason for why ad orientem worship is important, or how the argument for versus populum altars was based on bad scholarship.]

Ranjith says “it is clear that despite certain ‘steps forward’ to make the liturgy the vehicle of a true ecclesial renewal, there have also been some ‘backward steps.’ These are especially those changes in the liturgy that were effected hastily without proper research or due reflection.”

This can only mean that Ranjith thinks Paul VI approved changes “hastily without proper research or due reflection.”  [Ummm… yep.  That’s what it means.]

Unfortunately, most bishops who joined Paul VI in the slow renewal process, such as Bishop Albertus Martin and Cardinal Gerald Emmett Carter in Canada, are dead. [Let’s look backwards, not forwards.  Also, is this anything other than a slap at the last two Archbishops of Torontom Ambrozic and Collins?]  We must pray that some of their successors will act vigourously to defend Paul VI and the liturgical renewal he approved.  [If only they would defend the reforms as they are actually documented.  That would mean the Novus Ordo in Latin, ad orientem with Gregorian chant and polyphony.]

Fr. Gilles Routhier of the Laval University theology department has made a career of researching how Vatican II was received in Canada. Regarding liturgical changes, he argues that any abuses that occurred locally happened mainly because changes, such as use of the vernacular, took so long to come into effect, and not because they were brought in too hastily or without due reflection. In Canada, by far the majority of Catholics welcome the renewal. 

Of course, attempts to explain past events in absolute terms can never fully satisfy everyone.

As for the future of liturgical renewal, Archbishop Piero Marini, who recently ended long service as the head papal liturgist, [And now deserves a long and fruitful retirement.] makes a crucial point in his new book, A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal. He points out that no place in Holy Scripture is God pictured standing behind His people, calling us to turn back to the past.  [THAT is the great insight available from that book about this issue?   I wonder if the author caught Archbp. Marini’s comment that the reforms the Consilium were jamming down the Church’s throat intended also to change the Church’s doctrine?  Go back and read the top of page 46 carefully.]

Even in calling us to abandon old sins, God is urging us forward to a new life. [Did the writer just draw a moral equivalence between traditional liturgy and sin?] Old liturgical forms and practices had their glorious days, and now is the time to keep the Vatican II renewal moving forward in the direction Paul VI approved.

(Daly, now living in Toronto, is publisher emeritus of The Catholic Register. He also worked for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops for 35 years.)  [So I assume he was in part responsible for the Winnipeg statement?]

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Toronto Catholic Register: op-ed attack on Archbp. Ranjith and Benedict XVI

  1. Woody Jones says:

    I think it clear from the tone of his text that when he says “Vatican II renewal” he means Vatican II rupture.

  2. RichR says:

    Unbelievable. What poor journalism.

    The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    Ranjith deserves a red hat for taking all the gut-punches for the HF.

  3. Clavem Abyssi says:

    I’m not an Old Testament scholar, but I’m pretty sure a large portion of that tome is dedicated to calling the people of Israel back, away from their new abominable practices and to what they did before… For every Abraham who leaves his homeland, there’s a Nehemiah who goes back. That indicates there’s an objective standard of truth, not just progress versus regression, and sometimes we need to go forward and sometimes we need to go backwards.

  4. Brian Day says:

    Clavem Abyssi says in part:
    “…not just progress versus regression, and sometimes we need to go forward and sometimes we need to go backwards.

    I think it is more of a “sometimes we stray, and then we need to return to the fold”. Good points otherwise.

  5. Chironomo says:

    Clavem;

    A very shrewd observation… guess he missed that one!

    Overall, I think it is a giant step forward that this kind of opposition is being made public and with such ferocity… it is a sure sign that progress is being made! However I find it rather a strange argumentative technique to admit that your opposition is actually right, but that your point is valid because it is a commonly held error. Also, to point out the “problems” with Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings, and then cite Achbp. Marini as a valid source seems, well… a little intellectually dishonest.

  6. John Enright says:

    I’m not surprised by this article in view of the longstanding social liberalism of many Canadians which resulted in such fiascoes as mandatory universal health care producing more problems than cures. Mr. Daly, in all probability, is likewise a proponent of the modern “nanny state.”

  7. Tom Lanter says:

    Thank God for men like Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith who are faithful to our Holy Father. I never cease to be amazed how silly are those who have been promoting change, for at least four decades, on the church’s believers. These are the same people who removed the tabernacle from the sanctuary because it was “distracting” and then gave us the choir/band in full view near the alter. This group is aging but they are still a force to be reckoned with, they remain very powerful. Communion rails continue to be torn out. How much longer Lord how much longer?

    JMJ
    Tom Lanter

  8. georgeauinas says:

    With respect (and not wanting to start another long comment war), in a previous post Fr. Z praised the idea of liturgical freedom (in reference to bowing or genuflecting before receiving). But in this post, Fr. Z supports someone who wants to do away with a liturgical freedom. Why can we not praise liturgical freedom in taking the host in the hands or in the mouth? Both of which are allowed under the current norms.

    Was it not a Doctor of the Church who said (I am parphrasing here: “Make of your hands a throne to recive your Lord.” [That tired old chestnut again?]

    If the Church changes its norm, I will change. Until then, I will continue to make a throne of my hands.

  9. RichR says:

    Actually, Communion in the Hand is not a norm. It’s an indult (rescript) that dispenses from the norm, which is Communion on the Tongue.

  10. Pleased as Punch says:

    georgeauinas: You mean this passage?

    “In approaching, therefore, do not come up with your wrists apart or with your fingers spread, but make of your left hand a throne for the right, since you are about to receive into it a King. And having hallowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it the amen. Then, after cautiously sanctifying your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake, being careful lest you lose anything of it. For whatever you might lose is clearly a loss to you from one of your own members. Tell me: if someone gave you some grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, lest you might lose something of them and thereby suffer a loss? Will you not, therefore, be much more careful in keeping watch over what is more precious than gold and gems, so that not a particle of it may escape you.”

    Given his utterly lofty regard for the sacred species, I’d say St. Cyril would be very quick to approve the traditional Roman practice of receiving only on the tongue. Look around you. The practice St. Cyril describes has been brought back, but the reverence he enjoins has, curiously, not. Another datum for organic development, anyone?

  11. Jeff Pinyan says:

    “He argues that these changes are not approved by the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This of course is true. The constitution deals with general principles.

    Yes: general principles that did not “envisage” (because they love that word) turning altars around, Communion in the hand, elimination of the musical heritage of the Church, obliteration of Latin, etc. The general principles are actually rather specific in their areas of application!

    “We must pray that some of their successors will act vigourously to defend Paul VI and the liturgical renewal he approved.”

    They could start by adhering to the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, especially in regards to sacred music and Latin; they could also affirm (and exercise) some other long-standing liturgical traditions of the Church, such as ad orientem worship.

    “He points out that no place in Holy Scripture is God pictured standing behind His people, calling us to turn back to the past.”

    Apart from the excellent “Old Testament” comment above, doesn’t this statement fly in the face of the antiquarian attitude (condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei) that resulted in resurrecting the “Canon of Hippolytus”, turning altars back into mere tables, and removing so-called accretions to the liturgy? Isn’t that turning back to the past? Get the story straight, guys!

    Old liturgical forms and practices had their glorious days, and now is the time to keep the Vatican II renewal moving forward in the direction Paul VI approved.

    Hey now… did Pope Paul VI approval a “direction” of liturgical renewal, or did he approve of particular liturgical changes?

  12. Michael says:

    “If the Church changes its norm, I will change. Until then, I will continue to make a throne of my hands.”

    I’d be interested to know why. If I stipulate to everything you say, and accept that both forms are allowed under the current norms, I am still curious as to why you choose one form over the other. While there may be one Saint (the quote is of dubious or at least debatable authenticity) who seems to recommend the practice of receiving Commuinion in the hand, there are a multitude who recommend just the opposite. Why then do you choose it?

  13. AnnaTrad says:

    These liberals can stomp their feet, mutter and sputter and howl to the moon all they want. The writing is on the wall, their time is up and they know it.

  14. Chironomo says:

    This is all little more than a call to, once again, ignore the actual reforms and follow the ubiquitous “Spirit of Vatican II”. As I said above, the fact that they feel it necessary to defend it means that it is truly under attack. The left is, for the first time in a long time, seeing their precious “reforms” being dismantled slowly but surely, and they are not ready to give them up easily. Pray that God’s will be done.

  15. John Paul says:

    This kind of “editorial” troubles me. While we keep praying, and being told
    to be patient, “brick by brick,etc..” folks like this writer can’t or won’t
    see the damage done to Holy Mother Church. We’re trying to re-build one
    brick at a time and they are full steam ahead with the wrecking ball.

    How many fallen away Catholics, “clustered” parishes led by female “pastoral
    associates,” and all the other craziness in-between before more than just a
    few prominent priests and bishops realize the “renewal” is a bust?

  16. Thank you Father Z for your continuing work on behalf of all of us!

    God bless you for this!

  17. Communion in the hand! The mode used in Roman churches is a violation of the principle enunciated by St. Cyril of Jerusalem. He states to make of the left hand a throne and the right hand a manger so that the Lord rests on the palm, and then is brought up to the mouth to receive. The only western Christians that I have observed doing it correctly are pious Anglicans. I drives me nuts when I see Communion in the hand done improperly.

  18. Brian says:

    Friends

    This is the type of article which caused my to drop my subcription to the
    Catholic Register, after the better part of twently years. I think the final
    straw came recently when this paper did a lionizing article on Gregory Baum,
    Canada’s most infamous dissenter. That did it.

    Brian

  19. georgeaquinas says:

    In answer to Michael’s question: The first time I recieved Communion was kneeling at the altar rail at the Cathederal of St. Mathew the Apostle in Washington D.C. This was at the end of a beautiful 3 1/2 hour Mass led by the late Cardinal Hickey, in which I became a Catholic. I also recieve Communiun in the mouth when I visit my in-laws in Northern Virginia—mainly because of the hostile glares from the priests if you dare to stick out your hands.

    As to why I choose to recieve that way, the answer is that it is more meaningful to me—-it is simply a deeper and more meaningful experience than receiving directly to the mouth. It is simple as that. No deep theology, I just feel closer to Christ when I recieve on my hands. St. Cyril has said what I am trying to say; see Pleased as Punch’s comment for the text.

    I also thank Pleased as Punch for the actual quote (I am wasting time at work, so I could not pull the quote from my books!). I also have looked around quite a bit and I am certainly not convinced that the reverence is only lacking in those who receive on the hand.

    I just caution people to not judge one’s piety and seriousness of Faith based on how one recieves Communion.

    God’s Grace and Peace Onto You All.

  20. AnnaTrad:  See the Rules of Engagement.

    Especially,…

    2) Do not strut.  Let us be gracious to those who have in the past not been gracious in regard to our “legitimate aspirations”.

  21. Romulus says:

    georgeauinas: You mean this passage?

    Or this one?

    “Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.”

  22. Aq says:

    I can’t resist impression that georgeauinas folows the Neocatechumenal Way. They like very much this (doubtful) passage from St. Cyril. Equally much they dislike liturgical views of the pope and archbishop Ranjith.

  23. Henry says:

    I disagree with georgeauinas but I think that Aq’s comment is uncalled-for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s from the Neocat way or some other group or none at all. To label people as if such a label invalidates their views is disrespectful.

    The quotation from Cyril is hardly spurious but is among the writings usually considerd authentic.

    I do disagree with georgeauinas concerning communion in the hand; I think that another poster above has pointed out that Cyril’s motivation for the throne (reverence for the sacred species) would prompt him to approve of direct reception into the mouth — as was indeed made the case in the East only a few decades later if I’m not mistaken.

    Let’s keep this discussion rigorous and not personal.

  24. Richard says:

    What strikes me is that the author of this article uses very short, simple sentences and appears to be writing at a sixth grade reading level. I wonder if there’s a reason for that.

  25. AnnaTrad says:

    Father I humbly apologies. I will try very hard in the future to behave better.

  26. chas says:

    I’m no longer convinced that SC did not pave the way for all manner of strange innovations, including the turning of altars, the virtual abandonment of Latin, and communion in the hand. The principles laid down in that document were so vague that any reform that happened could find support in it. It explicitly entrusts the reform to experts… (I’m feeling a bit gloomy today)

  27. TerryC says:

    “I’m no longer convinced that SC did not pave the way for all manner of strange innovations, including the turning of altars, the virtual abandonment of Latin, and communion in the hand. The principles laid down in that document were so vague that any reform that happened could find support in it. It explicitly entrusts the reform to experts… (I’m feeling a bit gloomy today)”
    That is way to gloomy! I think the problem is that the orthodox bishops at VII never in their wildest dreams believed that anyone would have the chutzpa to make the kinds of changes Archbishop Annibale Bugnini pushed through. What pope would allow such changes? Paul VI. Would John XXIII have? I don’t know. He did appoint Fr.Bugnini to the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy. Does that mean he was in accord with the archbishops ultimate actions? I don’t know.
    Certainly the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy is not very general. It calls for the use of the vernacular only in a limited way, speaks to the preservation of chant, and requires Latin remain the primary language of the Mass. It was not too general, it was ignored.

  28. Brian,

    You mean Gregory Baum the former Jewish convert, Catholic defrocked Priest, St. Michael’s College Theologian married Prebytyrian Minister Canadian Bishops Second Vatican Council Periti critic of Papa Ratzinger’s Dominus Jesus? That Gregory Baum?

    Great Canadian periti he was…good fried of De Roo, Daly and the rest…

  29. Francis Brennan says:

    Fr. Z.,

    I still subscribe to the Catholic Register out of inertia although I find myself flipping through it quickly and then binning it pretty much every week. For me, it is the epitome Spirit of Vatican II and irritatingly 1970s in its outlook.

    I was glad to see that Archbishop Collins corrected some of its off-the-mark reporting of Summorum Pontificum. I hope he will continue to use his influence to steer it in a more orthodox direction (it had an article a week or so ago extolling a new age retreat centre run by trendy nuns…)

  30. TS says:

    The Catholic Register is very much a “safe” publication, in that it publishes what is “respectable” to the ecclesiastical establishment in Canada, which happens to be very afraid of anything traditional. There are some exceptions to this. You might even say it is like a Catholic version of The Toronto Star, although the Star at least is creative, whereas the Register seems to recycle the same stories over and over (‘socially responsible investing’, ‘eco-theology,’ environmentalism, ‘poverty’, the choir school, the Sisters of St. Joseph). To appeal to older generations they like to print stuff that looks traditional (i.e. Catholics of Irish ancestry waxing poetic about how very Catholic they are) but which in fact presents no challenge to the status quo in the Church and society today.

  31. David O'Rourke says:

    For the record Fr.Z. Cardinal Ambrozic was anything but a friend to the Usus Antiquior. Archbishop Collins is still relatively new. He treats traditionalists with kindness and respect which (frankly) his predecessor did not but he has yet to take any real action. I get the impression that this is true of the majority of the Canadian bishops.

  32. David: On the other hand, I knew Card. Ambrozic from his visits to Rome. This fellow had, at least in that clarical house, nothing of the airs that some cardinals could put on. I found him to be very congenial and warm.

    However, my point was really that the writer of the article has his eyes locked firmly on the past.

  33. RBrown says:

    Certainly the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy is not very general. It calls for the use of the vernacular only in a limited way, speaks to the preservation of chant, and requires Latin remain the primary language of the Mass. It was not too general, it was ignored.
    Comment by TerryC

    Everything you mention is true. But the problem is that SC often is on both sides of an issue–there are texts from SC that can be used to undermine its own positions.

    In the 90’s Cardinals Koenig of Austria (said to be the Grand Elector of JPII) and Enrique y Tarancon of Spain said in separate interviews that SC was not a very good document.

  34. TonyM says:

    The answer is YES, the writer IS making a moral equivalence between
    the traditional liturgy and sin.

    This is a rhetorical trick I have even heard from the pulpit.

    I can understand the anxiety of people like Daly. They believed that
    their work of “reform” was the most important task in the world. They taught and persuaded many others that what was old was defective and inferior. Now they see elements of that “reform” falling apart.

    Speaking of rhetoric, am I the only one who noticed that brilliant
    explanation of liturgical abuse? According to the Quebecois priest
    he quotes, liturgical abuse happened not BECAUSE of the reforms, but because the reforms were not implemented SOON ENOUGH. Brilliant.

  35. Richard T says:

    “now is the time to keep the Vatican II renewal moving forward in the direction Paul VI approved”

    Fascinating – their highest appeal is to an old Council and a long-dead Pope.

    These modernisers are becoming traditionalists!

  36. CK says:

    He points out that no place in Holy Scripture is God pictured standing behind His people, calling us to turn back to the past.”

    Oh I don’t know about that. I think we have many examples in the reminders by the Lord to ALWAYS re-examine if we are NOW living in the Will of the Father. Christ did this to the shock of His own when He had to state that Moses changed things due to the stubborness of the people, BUT, IN THE BEGINNING, what was intended by God’s will was something else entirely….the Essence. And He condemned the convenient changes to God’s original intent by the Jewish leaders who made things likeable to themselves, to serve themselves, and “anointed” those changes to God’s will as “something new but equal” due just to their own religious positions over the people, without perhaps realizing they would definitely have to answer for their misleadings. And I’m sure He wasn’t just kidding about such serious matters pertaining to His Father’s Will. Look what He sacrificed to remain in union with Him.

  37. Michael says:

    “As to why I choose to recieve that way, the answer is that it is more meaningful to me——it is simply a deeper and more meaningful experience than receiving directly to the mouth. It is simple as that. No deep theology, I just feel closer to Christ when I recieve on my hands. St. Cyril has said what I am trying to say; see Pleased as Punch’s comment for the text.”

    Thanks for answering. It honestly had not occurred to me that anyone would think communion on the hand was more reverent.

  38. patrick says:

    The only problem I have with recieving in hand, is a worthiniess aspect. Myself personally. Just always feel like my hands, because they touch everyday ordinary items, arent worth to touch the presence of Almighty God. So TYpically I recieve on the tongue. I cant even describe, the how much more I felt the presence in recieving this way at the first TLM mass I went to. Without the distractions,.. I was just totally opened in heart and mind. Truly wonderful.

    Now on the real topic. Its sad how some of these “liberals” are acting. but I think it comes down to a pride thing. The Distorted interpretation of Vatican II did alot of things. One most important, and alot of people can probably vouch for this, was a lessening of some roles at mass, and an expansion of others. Certainly in many areas, one could even be confused as to who really is presiding over the liturgy. We have so many “spoecial people” who do things in the liturgy. We have parish councils, who all but do the priest’s pastoral jobs for him. We have “litrugy committees” that plan weekly masses (even though we have been doing primarily the same setup for 2000 years..and yes you can consider novus ordo in there). We have in St Louis, a very good example of that with the st. stanislaus situation.

    What does it boil down to? Pride. There are people in this interpretation of Vatican II that have very trumped up roles, posts, positions, whatever. I think they arent readily wanting to relinquish those roles. Its political when you think about it. Now dont get me wrong, parish councils do good things. And one shouldnt confuse sacristans, or an altar society with a liturgy committee. I really think thats the root of it, one is not willing to give up their understanding of their role in the church, and in the liturgy, so they talk about how evil the old ways were, and how liberating Vatican II (or atleast their inept understanding) was.

    I firmly believe that the laity should be active in a parish. Hopefully I am not misconstrued. But I think the problem we have with these reforms of reforms, is that some people arent so willing to come down from their new found pedestals.

    We need to pray for these people, that they can find from God the humility to submit to Holy Mother Church, and what she truly teaches on all subjects.

  39. Ann says:

    To those of you who have made comments about the Canadian Church — I don’t know if you are actually in Canada or are reporting what you have heard or observed, but I am in Canada and I can tell you it is true. It seems that we are always trying to do things our own way — in fact, not too many years ago when the Papal Nuncio was visiting Edmonton, our then parish priest had the opportunity to speak privately with him. The Nuncio’s comments were basically that he had noticed that the Canadians are only happy doing their own thing, doing “new” things in the Church, instead of just following.

    This results in a real lack of consistency from one place to another and we constantly hear things like “well, they do it at such and such parish so what’s wrong with it?” as parishioners travel around the country and bring back home the great (tongue in cheek) ideas they have picked up along the way. I also heard this from one priest who is visiting from another country, and I finally told him straight out that the parish to which he first went when he came to Canada was NOT a good example of how things should be done because they are known for “doing their own thing”!

  40. Elise B says:

    John Enright : please do not confuse the issues – what concerns the State and what concerns the Church. Universal health care was a blessing for my mother when she suffered a stroke. Without it she would have lost her modest home and it would certainly have killed her. Thanks to it, poor people have no excuse for not taking care of their health and visit the doctor or the hospital when needed. Besides, many social measures are in agreement with the social doctrine of the Church. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of placing the Church in a «right-left», «conservative-liberal/NDP/BQ» or «Republican-Democrat» Procustus bed (I hope I got this right :-)).
    Agreeing with the social measures of the State does not make one a heretic. I was never enthusiastic with the liturgical changes and welcome Pope Benedict’s efforts to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium as it was meant to be. I agree with him that it has a manufactured air. And every time I hear that something is done «in the spirit of Vatican II», I go to the conciliar texts and, sure enough, it is not there.

  41. truthfinder05 says:

    Fr. Z,
    So glad you got sent this article. I was going to do it myself, but I was too infuriated by it. I’m young, and I think I know why things are so bad in the Church in Canada. It’s because people like this writer have been in charge of the CCCB. I regard most books published by the CCCB as rubbish. You might find it interesting to note that the picture of Paul VI used in the paper was one where, I’m pretty sure (sure hope I’m right), he’s wearing the episcopal gloves (or whatever they’re called.) I can’t imagine that this writer would be too pleased if his bishop showed up wearing gloves because he was following the precedent of Paul VI.
    Any word of when the document on interpreting the SP comes out?
    God Bless.

  42. Elizabeth says:

    Regarding the Winnipeg Statement: for a comprehenseive description of what happened at Winnipeg in 1968, “Tragedy at Winnipeg; the Canadian Catholic Bishops’ Statement on Humanae Vitae, by Msgr. Vincent Foy, can be read here:

    http://militesveritatis.blogspot.com/2006/10/tragedy-at-winnipeg-canadian-catholic.html

    Msgr. Foy has been foremost in Canada in defending Humanae vitae and promoting a recall of the Winnipeg Statement.

    Here is a 1968 video archive at CBC T.V. (Canada) of clergy and lay people discussing Humanae vitae. Note the dissent (euphemism for heresy):
    http://archives.cbc.ca/health/reproductive_issues/clips/572-2994/

  43. TonyM says:

    Wow. That last video clip is amazing. This is a great example of
    the “blind leading the blind” since the priests in attendance
    seem too timid and insecure to give those ladies a clear answer.
    The audience is composed of religious sisters,
    theology students and faculty. Yet the attitude to the topic is one of
    irreverence and arrogance. Those poor priests really seem to believe
    that it is their job to act as “mediators” between the teaching
    of the magisterium and the unwelcoming attitude of the people.

    Forgive them Father, they did not know what they were doing.

  44. Ann says:

    I am appalled at this. Thank you, Elizabeth, for the references. I was never fully aware of what happened with the Winnipeg statement or the handling of HUmane Vitae in Canada. I was so saddened to see the priests on the panel making out as though this encyclical wasn’t really important to follow, as though the Holy Father was way off base in what he was saying. I wish we could know the name of the one lady who stood up near the end of the CBC clip and agreed with the Church teaching. I would love to write her a note thanking her for her courage to stand up among wolves and express her unity with the Pope. It must have been a huge sacrifice for her at that time.

    After reading the other post too, I can see how the Church in Canada has become what it is, doing what it wants, following its own ideas, as varied in its practices as possible. Once the people are told it is OK to just follow your conscience despite what the Church says is true, good and right, it’s all downhill from there. I am so disappointed in this, and I am so disappointed in many things that are happening as a result of it. From what I have read of the warnings Paul VI gave as to what would result in our society from the widespread acceptance of artificial birth control, I believe that everything he predicted would happen, has happened. We have a self-centered, immoral, culture of death. I am further disappointed to learn, through one of the links on the CBC page, that the “Pill” was discovered and promoted by a Roman Catholic doctor.

    In many ways, morally and liturgically, our modern Church seems like a train wreck!! It’s like we are heading downhill with no brakes and we cannot stop the downhill spiral — where do we go from here? I know Christ has not left his Church, but how does one person here and there even begin to try to get things back on track? I try not to lose hope, but I feel like I am in a desert, deprived and ripped off because so many things are missing. I didn’t even know until recently that there is nothing in the Novus Ordo that states the altar should be turned around so that the priest faces the people. All my life, this has been presented as one of the main changes from Vatican II. BUT IT”S NOT THERE!! Why, why why?? Sorry, I am rambling about too many things here — it’s not a good day.

  45. David O'Rourke says:

    As I remember it, the quote from St. Cyril said to make a throne by putting your right hand in your left and then having received the Host in your right hand move your cupped hands to your mouth.

    Also, as i remember it, when the change to Communion in the hand first came about the Catholic Register misquoted St. Cyril in order justify receiving the Host in the left hand and picking it up with the thumb and fore finger of the other hand and putting it in your mouth after the manner of the reception of a potato chip.

    In my youth I favoured Liurgical reform (not knowing how it would turn out) and, I believe I was the first in my parish to receive in my hands but I followed St. Cyril’s directions and NEVER in all my life picked up the Host with my thumb and fingers like a potato chip.

    In at least some parishes, standing to receive Communion came in before Communion in the hand. I never liked it and once told a priest friend who was big on all the cahnges that when I stood before him face to face and stuck out my tongue he could interpret it any way he liked. As you might guess, I was becoming disillusioned very qujickly. I now receive on my tongue and rejoice in Summorum Pontificum.