ACTION ITEM! POLL ALERT – The Tablet about the new tranzleshun

UPDATE 7 Dec: The Tablistas finally found the correct texts for their poll about the new translation. Go back and give it another try! NB: As a sweetener, there is a question about preference for the Ordinary or Extraordinary Forms.

Click HERE.

PS: They ask for your email address but you don’t have to give it in order to complete the poll.

UPDATE 7 Dec 1631 GMT:

A couple people have written to me saying that the Tablistas may be blocking people coming from this blog.  I doubt that, but it is fun to imagine.  If you can’t get in, it is probably a cookie/history issue because you already did their survey.

Here is another link. 


Original posted Dec 2, 2012 @ 11:52

A priest alerted me to a poll about the new, corrected ICEL translation of the Roman Missal being conducted online by the UK’s ultra-liberal dissenting catholic weekly The Tablet (aka The Bitter Pill). HERE.

You know what to do.

Be mindful that there are text errors in the poll!


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, POLLS and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. gmarie says:

    Be aware…there is at least one error in the text in Question 3. They erroneously listed “for all” instead of “for many” (I will give them the benefit of doubt here though it is entirely possible that the wording was intentional).

  2. If I recall my Social Psychology lectures correctly, it is usual that at least one question in any well-constructed questionnaire is called the “lie” test. It is there to catch out people who are making socially acceptable responses without answering honestly. Hence the change in direction of some of the questions, to catch out those who always answer yes or no.

    However, I don’t think they really did put that much thought into it… (and I don’t think this is a well-constructed questionnaire)

    I also find the lack of feedback as to the current answers slightly suspicious. How do we know the results are an accurate report of the responses?

  3. jbosco88 says:

    Achtung! There is a trick question – are you comfortable with “for you and for ALL”. Sneakily put in there, Tablet.

  4. Cathy says:

    gmarie, I noticed that as well.

  5. Joan M says:

    In Question 3, the did not just make a mistake of putting “for all” instead of “for many.” They used the entire line from the 1973 version – “shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins” instead of “poured out for you and for many.”

  6. jbpolhamus says:

    Yes, I noticed that they tried to catch the public out by using a text that is at variance with the new and more accurate translation. Clever ploy on their part, but not clever enough. Just this week, in San Diego, I had to attend a new rite funeral mass for a deceased relative, and the priest, wearing curiously the fully-exposed Roman collar in the Jesuit style, refused to say chalice on any occasion, but did use “for you and for many.” He also insisted on coming around like a politician and shaking everyone’s hand saying “Have a peaceful day.” I had already knealt and, clearly already at prayer, nodded to him without looking up. He shoved his hand in my face, so I said, “Thank you, father.” Whereupon he blessed me with a curious wordless extension of one hand. I prayed the harder for his conversion to reality.

  7. alexmfarmer says:

    Are they also trying to trick us by having some things that the priest says in the “have you got used to saying this” part? I never say chalice, or take this all of you and eat it, or go forth the mass is ended.

  8. AnAmericanMother says:

    Well, they might have put the obsolete wording in there as a “tell”, but that’s a bit sophisticated, given the rather clumsy wording of the survey as a whole.
    I checked “no” just to show that I was paying attention.
    I wonder what sort of response they are going to get.
    They are also probably NOT smart enough to sort responders that are directed from this blog . . . but if you want to fool them just in case, open a new window and go from somewhere else.

  9. Obumbrabit says:

    “3. Have you got used to saying and are you happy saying ‘And with thy spirit'”

    I didn’t know that Catholics get to say “and with thy spirit” in the UK. That is cool!

  10. MarieSiobhanGallagher says:

    I noticed the “for all” and I left it blank….

  11. Sword40 says:

    I took the “Poll” but it was difficult for me to answer as I haven’t attended the New Mass but 4 times in the last year. I am fortunate to be able to have the EF Mass, even though its a LONG drive.
    I’ll use the New Mass as my “backup”, in case of an emergency.

  12. Simon_GNR says:

    ‘Obumbrabit says:
    2 December 2012 at 3:17 pm
    “3. Have you got used to saying and are you happy saying ‘And with thy spirit’”

    I didn’t know that Catholics get to say “and with thy spirit” in the UK. That is cool!’

    We don’t: that is another mistake by the Tablet – like everyone else we say “and with your spirit”. Incidentally, there isn’t a single Catholic Church jurisdiction for “the UK”. There are three separate hierachies covering different parts of the United Kingdom: (i) England and Wales; (ii) Scotland and (iii) Ireland, which includes the six counties which constitute Northern Ireland and which are part of the UK. The three hierachies have different Holy Days of Obligation, for example: in Scotland and Ireland, the feast of the Immaculate Conception is a day of precept, but not in England, whereas Ss. Peter & Paul is a day of obligation in England but not in Ireland.

  13. Chatto says:

    I zipped over there, ready to fill it in, then I read the blasted thing, and had to come back here to see if it was a joke. I’m glad I’m not the only one who spotted dodgy wording. There’s more wrong with it than the “shed for you and for all”. It implies that the people in the pew are saying the word “Chalice” during Mass – when do we do that? Or are they saying that we never used that word at all before this new translation? How about the “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you under my roof “? If that’s the proper wording, we’ve been saying it incorrectly at my parish for a year, and the CTS have printed it incorrectly in their handy cards.

    I may be paranoid, but I don’t want to give them the satisfaction of ticking “yes” to any of the above, and for them to then say – “Ha! See! People can’t understand the new translation. They don’t even know what the words really are!” What to do? This is a Catholic Dilemma for Fr. Finigan’s Herald column!

  14. AnAmericanMother says:

    Well, they seem to have conflated the priest’s language and the people’s language, because later in the survey they ask if you’re a priest or laity. They should have said “say or hear”, but that may have been too much for their comprehension.

  15. Did anyone else get the impression that the author(s) of this survey have not been attending Mass regularly in the past year (hence their apparent ignorance of the new translation)?

    The Tablet is Catholic, isn’t it. With practicing Catholics for its staff members?

  16. Edprocoat says:

    I noticed in the section 3. Have you got used to saying and are you happy saying, the above mentioned things and I also wonder why they used the priests words during the consecration such as take this all of you and eat of it , shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins , and the final words of the priest Go forth, the Mass is ended , I answered no to all these as we do not say these things.


  17. benedetta says:

    I took the Tablet’s little litmus test…and…I scored a 100%! Yes, I have a pulse…

  18. Norah says:

    I replied in the affirmative for the “for many” question because I thought that they had made a mistake.

  19. dbqcatholic says:

    I also thought they made a mistake on the “for many” question otherwise it would make absolutely no sense… I also answered as if it had asked “say or hear” since obviously as laity I don’t say these during mass. Although I grew up always referring to the cup used at mass as a Chalice. Maybe because I started serving at altar around 1972 or 73.

  20. Mariana says:

    Oh dear, I checked ‘yes’ at ‘for all’ because it seemed to me to be just one more clumsily worded question. Should have read the comments first! But as the questions are incorrectly put I think the survey will in the end show nothing very clearly at all.

  21. Kevin says:

    It says it all that the questionnaire’s creator apparently doesn’t know the difference between the wording of the old and new translations, or that nobody in the English speaking world says “thy spirit”, or that priests and laity say different things during the Mass.

  22. pmullane says:

    I completed this survey when passed a link by a priest friend, although the comment I made there was that ‘Yes I’m happy with the improved translation, however my opinion is on no consequesnce’.

    The ‘mistakes’ in the questions just go to show how easily manipulated these polls can be. On a positive note, however, it also goes to show that the progressives at the pill are none to confident that the improved translation is as unpopular as they would like it to be.

  23. mhazell says:

    STOP PRESS! They’ve corrected the mistakes in the questionnaire!

    I suppose this means that they haven’t been paying attention at (or attending) Mass for the last year after all, then. Ah well, no big surprises there.

    Tabula delenda est!

  24. feargalmac says:

    I live in Ireland. We actually say, “And with your spirit”. A moot point perhaps. Unfortunately, the new translation hasn’t stopped priests from using “inclusive” language, for example, during the Creed the priest will say, “For us and our salvation” rather than “For us men and our salvation”. How does one tackle this?

  25. jbosco88 says:

    They’ve changed the Poll answers – “for all” has been changed to “for many”, and “thy” to “your”. I wonder if they will reset the stats, or manipulate the existing results to say “many” is baaaaaaad thing…

  26. wmeyer says:

    So now that the wording has been corrected to agree with the liturgy, some responses have been inverted, given that people read the errors as trick questions.

  27. MKR says:

    Those whose priests have refused to say “for many” probably have “gotten used” to “for all.”

  28. ajf1984 says:

    I especially liked the final question where one can self identify (check as many as apply) as a member of the laity, a religious or consecrated person, AND a member of the clergy!

  29. Patti Day says:

    Appears that one may submit multiple surveys.

  30. Scott W. says:

    I think if someone writes a history in the future, the noise against the new translation coming to absolutely nothing will be seen like the Battle of the Bulge–a last ditch effort by an enemy on its way down the drain.

  31. e.e. says:

    Yes, you can submit multiple surveys. I submitted one yesterday and then submitted another one today now that the wording of the questions is corrected. (Talk about an unreliable poll — they’d have to have the technical ability to sort the surveys completed before the corrected wording to those completed after in order to get any kind of reliable results…)

    Whether they have the technical ability to screen out multiple submissions, I don’t know. But the survey website itself doesn’t prevent multiple submissions.

  32. e.e. says:

    As an aside, I went to a Spanish-language Mass yesterday, and was struck by how close the Spanish translation of the Mass now is to the English translation of the Mass. Prior to the new translation, this was not the case — the English translation was substantially different and it was more of a struggle for me to follow along at Spanish-language Masses.

    Alas, there’s no comment box on the Tablet’s survey to share fun things like that.

  33. Fr. Pius, OP says:

    An interesting point is the question of the striking one one’s breast during the Confiteor. The wording of the Tablet’s question suggests that the proper form is to strike thrice. But that was not the authentic interpretation of the Congregation for Rites in 1978. There are good reasons to disagree with this interpretation, especially considering it seems to support the hermeneutic of rupture that the current Holy Father has worked so hard to correct. Nevertheless, it is the extant authentic interpretation. And they were clear that one strike of the breast is sufficient:

    87. Query: During the recitation of certain formularies, for example, the “Confiteor, Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus,” the accompanying gestures on the part of both priest and people are not always the same: some strike their breast three times; others, once during such formularies. What is the lawful practice to be followed?

    Reply: In this case it is helpful to recall:
    1. gestures and words usually complement each other;
    2. in this matter as in others the liturgical reform has sought authenticity and simplicity, in keeping with SC art. 34: “The rites should be marked by a noble simplicity.” Whereas in the Roman Missal promulgated by authority of the Council of Trent meticulous gestures usually accompanied the words, the rubrics of the Roman Missal as reformed by authority of Vatican Council II are marked by their restraint with regard to gestures. This being said: a. The words, “Through my own fault” in the “Confiteor” are annotated in the reformed Roman Missal with the rubric: “Thy strike their breast” (“Ordo Missae” no. 3). In the former Missal at the same place the rubric read this way: “He strikes his breast three times.” Therefore, it seems that the breast is not to be struck three times by anyone in reciting the words, whether in Latin or another language, even if the tripled formulary is said (“mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”). One striking of the breast is enough. Clearly, also, one gesture is enough in those languages in which the words expressing fault are translated in a simpler form, for example in English, “I have sinned through my own fault”; in French “Oui, j’ai vraiment peche’.” b. The special restraint of the reformed Roman Missal is also clear regarding the other texts mentioned, the “Agnus Dei” and “Domine, non sum dignus,” expressions of repentance and humility accompanying the breaking of the bread and the call of the faithful to communion. As noted in the Reply no. 2 of the comments in Not 14 (1978) 301, when the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing, it is not to be thereby inferred that the former rubrics must be followed (see no. 51 above). The reformed Missal does not supplement but supplants the former Missal. The old Missal at the “Agnus Dei” had the directive “striking his breast three times” and the same for the “Domine, non sum dignus.” But because the new Missal says nothing on this point (“Ordo Missae,” nos. 131 and 133), there is no reason for requiring any gesture to be added to these invocations: Not 14 (1978) 534-535, no. 10.

  34. vetusta ecclesia says:

    The errors have ben corrected, except that, as a layperson, I do not have to say “chalice”.

  35. eulogos says:

    They have corrected all the errors now.

    I was not completely honest in my replies, because I have attended the Novus Ordo only four or five times since the change, and so am not really used to the changes in the wording of the people’s prayers and still have to use the pew card if there is still one there. If I do remember to start “And with …” rather than “And also” then I usually go on to say “And with thy spirit” since that was very ingrained in me from the old Book of Common Prayer, and is also still used in the “Rite One” form of the Anglican Use mass. Same with the “under my roof” thing. I have long memorized this as “I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof” and my brain doesn’t seem to keep up with the shift from the long used NO translation, to my well known form of that piece of scripture, and then into the modernized language. I thoroughly approve of these changes, and will not fight for “thy” and “thou” but no, I am not used to the changes. In fact, when I make mistakes I am always afraid the people around me assume I am someone who hardly ever goes to mass. (Whereas the case is that I have been attending the Ruthenian Rite primarily, and occasionally the Anglican Use and the EF.)

    I answered yes to everything because I am sure this is how I would answer if I did attend the NO on a regular basis. I was impressed by the difference especially in the canon, the first time I attended with the new translation. It felt as if the new translation was making my Diocese of Rochester territorial parish access some real serious Catholicism, no matter how out of synch that was with the rest of the mass and the general atmosphere there.
    Susan Peterson

  36. Dad of Six says:


    Yes, I have noted that the Spanish, Slovakian and Croatian Masses that I have attended seemed to have had the translations correct all along.

    English is a tough language to translate into. I guess.

  37. JacobWall says:

    @e.e. & Dad of Six,

    I joined the Catholic Church purely on my experience with the Mass in Spanish (in Mexico.) My take on the matter is that the Spanish translation is unquestionably better than the old ICEL. However, in some cases I think that the new ICEL is actually better than the Spanish. Sometimes, while reviewing Fr. Z’s wonderful WDPRS posts (for the Collects) I have done a three-way comparison between Fr. Z’s literal translation (and the Latin), the new ICEL and the Spanish translation of the collect. Unfortunately, there’s been a consistent pattern that the Spanish has been a little disappointing, kind of “softened” and replacing concrete images with more general abstract words.

    I haven’t taken note of examples, but yesterday’s Collect demonstrates the point (current ICEL):
    Grant your faithful, we pray, almighty God,
    the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ
    with righteous deeds at his coming,
    so that, gathered at his right hand,
    they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom.

    In the Spanish:
    -“almighty God” is replaced with “Lord”
    -“we pray, we beseech” or any equivalent is left out
    -“the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ” becomes “desire to prepare ourselves for the coming of Christ”
    -“righteous deeds” becomes “the practice of acts of mercy” and
    -“so that … they may be worthy to possess” becomes “so that … we may enter.”

    (For anyone who knows Spanish, the collect is “Senor, despierta en nosotros el deseo de prepararnos a la venida de Cristo con la practica de las obras de misericordia para que, puestos a su derecha el dia del juicio, podamos entrar al Reino de los cielos.”)

    The current ICEL, in comparision to Fr. Z’s literal translation seems fairly solid. The Spanish isn’t horrible – definitely better than the old ICEL. However, it looses its edge. I find this to be a common pattern. A few seem to be about the same as the current ICEL.

    I suppose it isn’t something you would note just attending Mass in Spanish if you didn’t take time to compare it to the Latin or a good translation ahead of time; I never noticed until I started reading Fr. Z’s WDPRS posts.

    It may be a minor point, but in the “non dignus sum” prayer just before communion, the last part of the Spanish says “… bastara para sanarme” – “… will be sufficient to heal me.” It leaves out the “anima mea.” I became aware of this difference early when the old Irish priest at my first parish in Mexico would add “bastara para sanar mi alma” – “will be sufficient to heal my soul.” (I think the addition was accidental influence of Latin rather than any decisive act of disobedience, since it was only occasional and I remember him saying once that he had learned everything in Latin.)

    Perhaps I’m being too picky. I think the most of the translation of the Mass into Spanish is reasonably good. The Collects could use improvement. I would say that the new ICEL has made the English translation decisively better than the Spanish one, whereas before it was decisively worse.

  38. JacobWall says:

    @Dad of Six,
    “English is a tough language to translate into. I guess.” No. Any translation is difficult if you want it to be good and reflect the richness of the original. English is no harder or easier to translate into than other modern languages. The old ICEL was deficient because it was designed to be that way. It was supposed to watered down and abstract as opposed to rich in imagery and concrete; supposedly that is “easier to understand.” (I can’t for the life of me see how abstract is easier to understand than concrete, but …) If they had wanted them to be good, they would have been – at least much, much better. The same is true of the faults with the Spanish translations of the Collects.

  39. Imrahil says:

    I can’t for the life of me see how abstract is easier to understand than concrete.

    Wise observation… and one concurrent with both the teaching of St. Thomas (S. th. I 14 I obj 1) and (which does not matter, but nevertheless) my own little experience.

  40. tgarcia2 says:

    I voted…

    I used my own computer and one at a univeristy computer just in case they’re tracking the IP addys lol

  41. I busted up at the “hahahahaha” you added after revealing the liberal misspellings.

  42. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Fr Pius,

    well, around here those who know the practice at all strike thrice at the Confiteor. Some do not know the practice, also since the Confiteor doesn’t come so often. But noone, simply noone, strikes once.

  43. j says:

    looking around to find if the Tablet was publishing results in realtime (no), found this
    and could not (and do not) believe the results

  44. Supertradmum says:

    This site is coming up “The survey you are trying to take is either not live or not available to you.”on my computer…Did anyone else get such a message?

  45. mamajen says:

    Just as admirers of the Tridentine Rite have been allowed to continue using the pre-Conciliar liturgy, I think people who favour the old English-language translation of the Mass should be allowed to celebrate it in that version.

    Ridiculous! And certainly shows their hand.

  46. acardnal says:

    Wow! The Tablet is something else. Quite different questions/statements now.

    This statement is really two different issues:
    “The new translation is more prayerful and reverent – we need a special language with which to address God.” I would answer YES and NO if they were asked as two different statements, but they are not so I answered “yes”.

    And again, “Some of the florid language is obsequious and distracting.” “Obsequious” and “distracting” are two words which mean different things! But since they used a conjunction, I voted “no”.

    As they say on ESPN, “come on, man!” Oh, sorry . . . that wouldn’t be inclusive.

  47. tgarcia2 says:

    I don’t like the fact they’re asking for emails….just my slight libertarian side coming out.

  48. Scott W. says:

    One theory I’ve heard of the American Civil War is that the problem for the Confederacy was that Southern Nationalism didn’t arise until after the war; too late to do anything about it. Whether that is true or not, I don’t know, but the kerfuffle over the new translation reminds me of that theory. Now maybe there will be another translation in the future, but we ain’t going back to the pablum we had before. Progressives lost the language battle. And once you lose that, you are losing the war and this Tablet survey barely even registers as a last-ditch Battle of the Bulge. Progressives have already had their Stalingrad moment–it’s all downhill for their vapid worldview from here on.

  49. jesusthroughmary says:

    “Some of the florid language is obsequious and distracting”

    The irony makes my eyes bleed.

  50. AnAmericanMother says:

    There wasn’t any nationalism. The whole point was states’ individual governance.
    But once it became apparent that the war would be a long slog, the South had lost. The region did not have the men, materiel, or financing (despite Judah P. Benjamin’s best efforts, and they were outstanding) for an extended conflict.

  51. J,

    I believe those results posted at the Tablet are from a poll done by U.S. Catholic. Which was basically a poll of their subscribers who are mostly older and progressive. So it is accurate for its restricted base. The Pew survey, which gives just the opposite results was a science random survey. To use the U.S. Catholic’s poll in stead of the scientific Pew survey, is dishonest special pleading. That’s all there is to it.

  52. Josephus Muris Saliensis says:

    “… taken down due to technical difficulties.” LOL

    Like total ignorance of the Mass texts!!!

  53. pelerin says:

    Supertradmum – yes I got that when I first tried to answer the questions a few days ago. But it seems to work now so worth trying again. I too was very amused by the definition of ‘technical difficulties’ – total rubbish! As if anyone having looked at the first version believes that.

  54. majuscule says:

    We did not HAVE to supply an email address but I thought I’d mention this for those cases when you do:

    I don’t think it would be sinful…?

  55. ajf1984 says:

    Ha! The question about one’s state in life (laity, religious/consecrated, or clergy) no longer allows one to choose multiple options, but the question itself still directs to “select as many as apply”! Sheesh–it’s called copy-editing, Tablet-types! And people used to get paid to do it. Maybe not so much anymore for online surveys?

  56. Speravi says:

    From the poll: “Given a choice, which translation of the Mass would you prefer?”
    Perhaps this might be a surprise to progressive scholars, but liturgical Rites are already inculturated (or perhaps more specifically, they are already local expressions of the Apostolic liturgy). The liturgy of the Latin Rite Church is in Latin. It was inculturated in ancient Rome (with later Frankish influence). It is the Roman (later Romano-Frankish) expression of the Apostolic liturgy. The Roman Rite is in the language of the Romans. Yes, it has roots in Greek; but how meaningful is it to talk about the pre-Latin Roman Rite? As a “Rite,” it would seem more accurate to talk about the Roman Rite’s pre-Latin foundations, roots, or development. But the mature Rite is inseparable from Latin. Latin is not a translation. The Roman rite is in Latin. That is why we have to translate it if we want it in the vernacular.

    Furthermore, that is why there is no hypocrisy or double standard in answering both that you prefer the Traditional Roman Rite in Latin and that you believe that those who are attached to the old translation should be forced to use the new. Those who use the Modern Latin Rite Liturgy in the vernacular are using just that, the Latin liturgy…but in vernacular. They are not being asked to use a different form of the Latin liturgy. With the new translation, they are still using the same form of the Latin liturgy. The requirement is only that now, when they celebrate the modern Latin liturgy in the vernacular, they must use the vernacular in such a way as to more perfectly express what they are doing: celebrating the modern LATIN litugy. The new translation simply helps them to do better what they are already doing…celebrating the LATIN liturgy in the vernacular. There is no parity between requiring someone to use a more accurate expression of the same form of the Latin liturgy, and requiring someone to adopt a totally new form of the Latin liturgy. Therefore it is no way hypocritical tell someone that while a new form of the Latin Liturgy has been developed, the ancient form must be respected and permitted, while at the same time saying that since we have a new and more accurate vernacular expression of the one form of the Latin liturgy, the old and less accurate expression of the same form of the Latin liturgy will be prohibited.

  57. Scott W. says:

    There wasn’t any nationalism.

    Fair enough. I’m just pleased with my ability to compare progressives to the confederacy and the Wehrmacht in the same paragraph. :D

  58. monmir says:

    Since I most often attend the EF Mass I decided not to bother with the translation, if I attend the NO Mass I still answer in a low voice in Latin. Quite simple.

  59. Reginald Pole says:

    Just entered to take the survey and found this note:
    “Please note, this survey replaces one that was on our site briefly last weekend and which we unfortunately had to take down due to technical difficulties. That means any submission received before Wednesday won’t be counted in our survey results, so if you want to make sure your views are counted, please make sure you complete the new version. Please note, you may only complete this only once.”
    So everyone gets to retake the survey.

  60. wmeyer says:

    And only be sure you only proofread once only!

  61. yatzer says:

    Oh piffle! I thought the slight changes in wording were because it was the UK, not to trip people up. Silly me; should’ve read the combox first. (sigh)

  62. Hans says:

    If memory serves, the Mass was translated (it wouldn’t have been the “Mass” yet) from Greek into Latin sometime in the third century and was one of the causes of the schism of (later) St. Hippolytus before he was reconciled to Pope St. Pontian in exile (the Romans didn’t care that he was schismatic!) in Sardinia. Perhaps that’s what they mean??

    The survey still says: “at the consecration of the chalice”. Oddly enough, I thought it was the contents of the chalice that were consecrated. My bad.

  63. Although I am very fond of the EF (having first heard it on EWTN when, if I am not mistaken, our gracious host was a commentator for the broadcast), I am unaware of any parishes near Seattle which hold it at a time that would be accessible to my wife and I, and, we have the great good fortune of attending a parish that several times a year celebrates an even older form of the Mass, old enough that it was not abrogated by Vatican II—the Dominican Rite Mass. Probably needless to say, we are registered members of Seattle’s Blessed Sacrament Parish, part of the Western Dominican Province.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

Comments are closed.