Northwest Catholic Laity for Truth in Seattle

Letters to Archbishop Alexander Brunett

Among the petitions and pleas sent to Archbishop Alexander Brunett regarding the kneeling regulations were two letters from Peter Miller and Erven Park. Since no response was offered, these correspondences are reprinted in their entirety here:

[UPDATE: After this issue went to print a response to the second correspondence was received by Erven Park.]

+++

01 March 2003
Our Lady's Saturday

Most Reverend Alexander J. Brunett
Archbishop of Seattle
910 Marion St.
Seattle, WA 98104

"Because Christ Himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, He is to be honored with the worship of adoration." (Catechism 1418)

Your Excellency,

In an article announcing a new set of liturgical changes appearing in the 16 January 2003 issue of the Catholic Northwest Progress, Your Excellency described a request made to the pastors and parish leaders that they be "particularly sensitive to your questions, and to provide sound catechesis and pastoral care to ensure that you understand the reasons for the changes you will experience." As I have been yet unable to gain an understanding as to these reasons from certain parish leaders, I have opted to take my concerns to the chief pastor of the archdiocese. What follows is a list of observations and questions that, if answered, will go a long way to my understanding of these changes. There are roughly eight general questions for which I am requesting a response. If any of the claims made are inaccurate or questions posed are unclear, please do not hesitate to contact me to offer corrections and/or receive clarifications.

The first indication that liturgical changes would soon be instituted in the Archdiocese of Seattle came in the aforementioned issue of the Progress, in which Your Excellency stated (ATTACHMENT A):

"Beginning on the First Sunday of Lent — March 9, 2003 — six new liturgical norms will be implemented that involve the Communion Rite of the Mass. As Archbishop, I need to promulgate those areas of practice that represent the universal practice of the church. Pastors and other parish leaders will present and explain these changes to you during the weeks preceding the First Sunday of Lent, and after the norms are implemented."

"Later this year, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal will be implemented. At that time, other norms which deal with the role of the priest at Mass — specifically, the preaching of the liturgical homily — will take effect. Full implementation of the General Instruction will take place by Sept. 14, 2003, the Feast of the Triumph of the Cross."

Although I follow such matters to a reasonable extent and was aware of the new Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, I was a bit surprised later in the issue to read Fr. Jan Larson's liturgical column, which told us:

"Perhaps the one norm that will impact most Catholics regards the proper posture during the Communion rite. The norm is that everyone should remain standing after the Lamb of God until the last person has received Communion. When the priest sits, then everyone else may sit or kneel. ... This is not really a change, since standing at this time has been the norm for the universal Church at least since 1969. In the time immediately after Vatican II, some pastors never implemented the standing posture, and so some congregations continued to kneel, as was the custom prior to the council. ... It may seem natural and tempting to kneel in thanksgiving right after we have received, but the most appropriate posture for thanksgiving is to stand."

In a later edition (27 February 2003), Fr. Larson described the act of standing before and after Communion as "good table manners":

"The rule that we remain standing from the Lord's Prayer until after all have received Communion is good manners — a way that we acknowledge that the Communion procession is still going on, and that we are in prayerful solidarity with those who have not yet received their Communion. When the procession is ended and people have returned to their seats, then is the time to spend some moments in private prayer, either sitting or kneeling. Good table manners tell us that we ought to remain engaged with the intent and the dynamics of the shared meal, even though on occasion we might be tempted to depart from the ritual and 'do our own thing.'"

As the words of Fr. Larson in this context are unclear concerning the official policy to be implemented, I will next refer to a publication made available on the archdiocesan website entitled "Implementation of Holy Communion Norms" (ATTACHMENT B) which indicates that:

Archbishop Brunett has set the first Sunday of Lent, March 9, 2003 as the implementation date for the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America (the Norms). This applies to any Sunday vigil Masses on Saturday, March 8, 2003.

Specific provisions to be implemented are:

Pastors and chaplains should use the time between now and the beginning of Lent to conclude the catechesis of the faithful on these new Norms. The Norms are available on the USCCB web site in both English and Spanish. The English version is at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.htm, and the Spanish version is at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil1.htm. The English version only is also available in booklet form for $5.95 from the USCCB (call 800-235-8722 and ask for publication no. 5-432); a limited supply is also available for sale from the archdiocese's Liturgy Office. For your assistance, sample catechetical material (bulletin inserts and sample homilies) were (sic) sent to all parishes in a letter from the Archbishop on January 17, 2003.

As it appears to be the most official information offered by the archdiocese to date, I will use this document as a starting point for my questions. The first point of confusion came in trying to ascertain how the second bullet point (instructing the faithful to stand from the Pater Noster until after their reception of the Body of Christ) was derived from the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America (ATTACHMENT C) approved by the USCCB on 15 June 2001 and recognized by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on 22 March 2002 (while under the leadership of former Prefect Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estevez). Although a link to this document is provided in the archdiocesan liturgical statement, the document itself makes no mention of these postures.

Question 1: Why does the implementation of Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America in the Archdiocese of Seattle contain instructions to stand from the Pater Noster until after the reception of Communion, when these do not appear in the aforementioned norms?

Interestingly enough, however, discussion of these matters is included in the new GIRM and the adaptations specific to the United States (ATTACHMENT D) approved by the USCCB on 14 November 2001 and recognized by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on 17 April 2002. These norms (which we were told are to be implemented locally this September) detail under the heading "Posture of the Faithful," the following two adaptations:

This adaptation will be inserted at number 43, paragraph 2:

They should sit during the readings before the gospel and during the responsorial psalm, for the homily and the preparation of the gifts, and, if this seems helpful, they may sit or kneel during the period of religious silence after communion.

This adaptation will be inserted at number 43, paragraph 3:

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise. (emphasis in original)

Which, as may very well be imagined, only further adds to my confusion, and leads to my next couple questions:

Question 2: Why are Catholics in the Archdiocese of Seattle being instructed to stand after they receive Communion when the approved adaptation says "they may sit or kneel"?

Question 3: Why, if the approved adaptation instructs the faithful to "kneel after the Agnus Dei," are we being instructed to remain standing so that we may be in accordance with the "norms" of the Church? If Your Excellency, as Diocesan Bishop, has "determine[d] otherwise" that the faithful should not kneel at this time during the Mass, why is not an explanation given as to why such a determination was made rather than give the impression that such is the "norm" the rest of the Church is following?

Continuing along these lines, the Adoremus Society recently published a transcript of a conversation that took place on 14 November 2001 as the United States adaptations were being discussed (ATTACHMENT E). This exchange, reproduced below, involves Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput who asks for clarification on an amendment offered by Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Edward Clark proposing that the people stand until all have received Communion, and Mobile Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, then chairman of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy. Archbishop Lipscomb's response indicates that this is not the intention of the adaptation, as accepted by the BCL:

Archbishop Charles Chaput: Archbishop Lipscomb, [accepted amendment] number 3: it's not my amendment, it's Bishop Clark's. But it says there that it has been accepted or subsumed into [amendment] 2; but I don't think it really has been. Because in number 2 it says "The faithful may kneel or sit during the period of religious silence after Communion". And Bishop Clark is suggesting that no one sit or kneel till everyone receives, so it really isn't-- I mean-- it's kind of ignoring the question. For clarity I would just ask, I wanted to know, why does the Committee think it really is answering his question with the wording of number 2?

Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb: Well, I — "They may kneel or sit following the reception of Holy Communion", and instead say: "They should sit during the readings before the Gospel", and so forth, "and if this seems helpful, they may sit or kneel during the period of religious silence after Communion".

Archbishop Chaput: And what Bishop Clark is suggesting is that nobody sit or kneel until everybody receives; and then they can. So they're not really the same issue it seems.

Archbishop Lipscomb: Well, again, if that was the bishop's intention I don't think we would accept that as practice for the United States — until everybody goes to Communion then you either sit or kneel, that everybody remains standing until then. I just don't think that follows the practice of most of our churches in the United States.

Archbishop Chaput: See, I agree with you, but I thought this was confusing so I was just asking for a clarification. So the period of silence can begin as soon as you receive, if you want to go back and sit down, or kneel.

Archbishop Lipscomb: You can sit down, or you can kneel — or you can stand. That's included previously.

Archbishop Chaput: Okay, thank you.

Archbishop Lipscomb: We thought the bishop's point was about standing: that they be permitted to stand. And the standing is permitted in the preceding paragraph [43.1] where it deals with posture. And standing is the general rule for the universal Church.

NOTE: Archbishop Lipscomb's comment above was made before the official Latin version of the IGMR was released in March 2002. In the final version, the Holy See added a clause to §43 on posture, stating explicitly that where kneeling is the custom, it is "laudably retained".

Question 4: Does implementing a requirement to stand after Communion accurately reflect the intentions of the BCL? If so, how is it reconciled with the above comments?

Question 5: Is kneeling after Communion not the custom in the Archdiocese of Seattle? If so, why is it not being "laudably retained"?

The aforementioned passage from the Archdiocesan Liturgical Office contains the passage "For your assistance, sample catechetical material (bulletin inserts and sample homilies) were (sic) sent to all parishes in a letter from the Archbishop on January 17, 2003." As I do not have a copy of that letter, I cannot inquire as to the exact contents of those instructions. However, as I have been provided with bulletins from multiple parishes containing very similar wording, I am led to believe that they are fairly close to the information provided to each parish. Allow me to reproduce what appeared in Seattle's Our Lady of the Lake parish bulletin on 01 February 2003 (ATTACHMENT F):

POSTURES AT MASS

When the Roman Catholic Church began using the new Mass at the end of the 1960's, it stated that:

Although not common on the United Stated, these postures are the practice of the Catholic Church worldwide. The Church in the United States has decided that it is time to return to the common practice of the universal Church. This is part of our unity with the Holy Father and the Catholic Church around the world. Beginning March 8, the First Sunday in Lent, in the Archdiocese of Seattle, we will:

By late September, this will be the practice in every diocese in the United States. This is new to us, as we join our brothers and sisters throughout the world in these postures, but not new to the Catholic Church. In the weeks ahead, the meaning and appropriateness of these different postures will be explained. (emphasis in original)

Although I have been told that the mandating of standing before and after the reception of Holy Communion is taking place in several other dioceses (including Arlington and Los Angeles), I have also personally spoken to liturgical representatives of other dioceses (including Portland, Oregon) who have said they have absolutely no intention of implementing such a policy.

Question 6: Why is standing before and after Communion claimed to be an accepted and established practice in the "Church in the United States" when this does not appear to be the case? On what basis is the statement "by late September, this will be the practice in every diocese in the United States" made?

Question 7: If it cannot be demonstrated that these changes and postures represent even the decisions of the United States Bishops, how can it be claimed that their adoption is an exercise in loyalty to the Holy Father and Roman Catholic Church as a whole?

In another parish bulletin, parishioners were given the unfortunate admonition:

"We are not free to change these postures to suit our own individual piety, for the Church makes it clear that our unity of posture and gesture is an expression of our participation in the one Body formed by the baptized with Christ, our head. When we stand, kneel, sit, bow and sign ourselves in common action, we given (sic) unambiguous witness that we are indeed the Body of Christ (sic), united in heart, mind and spirit."

Question 8: Do Catholics in the Archdiocese of Seattle have the right to kneel immediately after receiving Communion?

Although in the archdiocesan newspaper, Your Excellency tells how:

"We must ensure that the liturgical life of the church is celebrated in a way that is characterized by quality and beauty. As I travel throughout the archdiocese, I am impressed by the efforts that are made to ensure this."

I have no doubt such travels have also revealed disturbing results. These may include Masses in which none of the congregation kneels at any point during the Mass, as can be attended at St. Benedict parish in Wallingford; or churches whose kneelers have been completely removed, as with St. Therese parish in Madrona. As Your Excellency has certainly visited more parishes than myself over the past couple years, even more numerous must have been the instances in which the language of the Mass was altered to be more "inclusive" through the removal of masculine pronouns, or in which a layperson or nun stood up after the Gospel to deliver a "homily" (a sight which could even be seen at St. James Cathedral in recent years). Worse yet, I'm sure Your Excellency has had the unfortunate opportunity to witness the horrific site of a priest (even one appointed to be the archdiocesan Vicar for Clergy) altering the Words of the Consecration, then joining a group of laywomen in tearing up a large, consecrated, leavened host into bite-sized chunks, distributing them into straw baskets, then proceeding to brush their hands together in an attempt to dislodge any remaining crumbs. Given that such occurrences are not difficult to come across, one wonders why the simple and pious practice of kneeling before and after Communion is being subject to elimination with such a speed and rigor not seen in liturgical matters for decades.

It is an unfortunate reality that Catholics in the Archdiocese of Seattle have seen some tough times over the past several decades. Parents have faced the difficult prospect of explaining why the local priest or bishop is doing things during the Mass expressly forbidden by the Pope. When attending a liturgy in which the congregation stood during the Consecration or the "homily" consisted of a female in a leotard performing an "interpretive dance" around the altar, these Catholics had to explain to their children why it was not right. But these instances usually involved practices merely allowed by the bishop, not mandated. And those who refused to let their daughters become altar servers when it was outlawed, or fell to their knees on the hard tile of a Church bereft of kneelers during the Consecration, knew in their hearts they were expressing true obedience to the Holy Church and the Holy Father. Now, it would appear, that the Archdiocese of Seattle is appealing to this same spirit of loyalty to implement liturgical changes whose necessity and appropriateness seem highly questionable. Surely Your Excellency can appreciate the difficult position into which local Catholics are being placed when faced with the decision of whether to be obedient to their bishop's directives, or to act in a manner which they know and have always known to show due and proper reverence to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament.

Again, any aid you can offer in my search for understanding on this matter I would consider invaluable. If the enclosed material could be reviewed and a response to the contained questions offered by 15 March 2003, it would be greatly appreciated.

In my daily prayers Your Excellency remains,


Peter W. Miller
Northwest Laity for Truth
PO Box 15287
Seattle, WA 98115

CC: His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments


ATTACHMENTS:

A) "Let's welcome the church's new liturgical norms"
Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett
The Catholic Northwest Progress
16 January 2003

B) "LENT AND EASTER 2003: A Pastoral Guide — Implementation of Holy Communion Norms"
Archdiocese of Seattle Liturgy Office

C) "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America"
USCCB Bishops Committee on the Liturgy
(http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.htm)

D) "Adaptations of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia for the Dioceses of the United States of America"
USCCB Bishops Committee on the Liturgy
(http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.htm)

E) "Clarification of IGMR-US: May I kneel as soon as I receive Communion?"
Adoremus: Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy
(http://www.adoremus.org/KneelingafterCommunion.html)

F) "Our Lady of the Lake Parish Bulletin" (Seattle, WA)
01 February 2003

+++



March 7, 2003 — First Friday

TO: His Excellency
Archbishop Alexander Brunett
Archbishop of Seattle
110 Marion St.
Seattle, WA 98104

REGARDS: A PLEA TO OUR BISHOP

Your Excellency,

Greetings in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. May His Grace assist us in our endeavors at seeking His wisdom and truth. We pray this letter finds you well, even though we must acknowledge that your holy office does not grant you rest.

Your Grace, as our shepherd you are obviously aware of the apprehension and distress that has come to the fore with your faithful in recent days. This directly related to some new "adaptations" to be mandated by your office to be followed at holy Mass. One of these "adaptations" being that of further restricting the posture of kneeling (worship) at Mass.

You announced your awareness of this concern of your faithful in your column of January 16, 2003 in the Catholic Northwest Progress. It was entitled "Let's Welcome the Church's New Liturgical Norms." The first sentence read: "Most catholics approach the season of Lent in a spirit of reflection, attentiveness to God's presence, and openness to change and renewal."

It would be noted that your opening sentence draws concern and we would invite your clarification, to wit: With all due respect to your holy office, your Excellency, we would point out that the Catholic individual who fully comprehends his Faith knows well, and cherishes the reality, that "change" of doctrine or worship is not a hallmark of the Catholic Faith. This is so for the very sound reason that truth does not vary ("You vary, therefore you are not the truth."). "Change," however, is a common occurrence in the Protestant milieu and is an announced doctrine of the modernist heresy, based as it is on evolutionary humanism.

In truth, then, "change" is not at all a common procedure of the Catholic Church. Indeed, as you well know, from the fifth century up to Vatican II (1565 years) the alterations in the Mass were rare and incidental in scope. And yet, recent times all too often reveal Catholic churchmen alluding to frequent "change" as "progress" or "renewal." Therein lies a fundamental contradiction! If the Church is changeless in doctrine, it is of God precisely because God is changeless. If the church is changeable in doctrine, it is of man! The one transcendent, the other of the world.

If the Church is of God, it will be totally centered on the worship of God. If the church is of man it will endeavor to assign divinity to man and it is there where attention will be centered. The church of man, of course, is the church of subversion so it must vigorously deny to the unsuspecting its betrothal to the world. It is precisely where the emphasis lies, however, that reveals the truth.

You and I both recognize that we live in an age of denial, your Grace, and the revolutionary makes bold in knowing that a negative (denial) is difficult to prove. Fortunately, Christ Himself in His teaching illuminated the substance by which the unerring truth will be found in all such circumstances. "By their fruits you shall know them." Mat. 7: 16.

There is but one impediment in making use of this unerring tool revealing truth, and that is scrutiny must wait until the fruit comes of season so that it is in the light for all to see and examine From this state, the charlatan can no longer render his scorpion a flower, as it were. It is precisely because we have now arrived at the season of full ripening that you now find many of your faithful in the state of apprehension and distress at the fruit they are now witness to.

Our Bishops Now Conscripted to the World?

In the parlance of the world we must accept that you have been "dealt a difficult hand," your Excellency. As a bishop in today's American church, you have much more to occupy you than did your predecessors of say 40 years ago.

The bishop of yore, of course, had the substantial task of fulfilling his personal obligation of "teaching, sanctifying and governing" through his parishes, schools and seminaries. His devoted workforce in fulfilling this labor of the Church of Christ were for the most part those consecrated to God in religious life. Social responsibilities were quite adequately fulfilled for society by means of the Church's splendid hospital network and dedicated lay volunteer organizations serving societal needs.

The bishop of today has no less a charge assigned to him than that of his forerunner. Added to this, however, has been an extensive compounding of services established both within and without the local church,1 the magnitude of which essentially renders the bishop a vassal of his own bureaucracy. Activity overwhelms mission! The bishop, in reality, is reduced from leading to channeling.

Your particular office as bishop, your Excellency, is even more compromised by the fact of your appointments to national offices involving efforts directed to ecumenism. These responsibilities entail extensive travel, both national and internationally. The unavoidable absenteeism generated by these commitments cannot but relegate even more expectations of your church establishment.

Our putting these realities forth is not intended in any way to ridicule, rather, it should be taken in a spirit of our real apprehension in your behalf. It is the duty of any good Catholic in charity to voice concerns to their shepherds should harm be discerned for their well-being. Our priests, and especially our bishops, must be prayed for by all the faithful for theirs is the formidable responsibility for individual souls that must be answered for by them personally before God. No other shall shoulder their accountability nor share their judgment!

The shepherd beleaguered by busyness often fails to note the gathering storm. The world gives loud applause to his looking to the works of men but "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" 2 for that one who allows souls to be lost because of his distractions and commitments to the world.

And therein lies the crux of that which we beg to confer in this writing to your Excellency. Although accoutrements and offices have been appended by the score to the diocesan structure, most of these accretions are not of God but of man, for the service of man. Yet, what may be thought as progress, would in fact be a detriment to the bishops office inasmuch as it affected a deterrent to the bishops ability to effectively perform his first and most sacred personal obligation to "teach, sanctify and govern" the souls of the faithful appointed to him. The bishop's office, then, is first to bring souls to God and any other activities that serve to impinge on that obligation will be to offend God and to jeopardize the eternal soul of the bishop.

Having said all of this, I beg your Excellency, as our teacher and shepherd, for I plead for your correction where I may be in error, to endure with me Christ's instruction to all of us that we are to discern the now ripened fruit as it presents itself.

As spoken of earlier, I will confine observations to only that relating to the Mass and the Eucharist, which "is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the fount from which all her power flows." 3 If we speak of the Mass, its center and purpose, we must address the house (church) where it is performed and the behavior of the faithful participating. It is our endeavor in this writing to speak to both of these subjects (house & faithful) separately and specifically.

Christ's own description of the house sets the tone for what it must be: "My house4 shall be called a house of prayer." Mat. 21: 13. If the Mass is to be rendered in Christ's "house of prayer," it stands then that the centering must be on God. Looking at the fruit now before us, we must ask the alarming question: "Is that presently the true reality?"

The House of Prayer

Inasmuch as the modern day innovative processes altering the liturgy began in 1969 with the issuance of the new "Novus Ordo Missae" of Mass by Pope Paul VI, it necessitates that we judge the fruits displayed in our day as they measure with the Mass of Tradition prior to that time and, which had been in place for centuries. There is no questioning of the holiness and efficacy of the Traditional Mass as is attested to by literally every Saint canonized in the Church today.

May we respectfully suggest we begin with Christ's "house of prayer." Being a house of prayer its structure is designed to provide communal focus on God their Creator who, indeed, will be actually present in His Divine Person at each lawful Mass taking place there. Christ makes Himself present on the altar, first, as His own bodily sacrifice offered to the Father in atonement for the sins of the faithful present and, then, as divine food in the form of His Graces (holiness) to vivify the soul of each worthy partaker as their merit would warrant at that time.

Hence, we see the sacred altar of the house of prayer at the very head of the church and elevated for all to see as this is where Christ becomes present. Above the altar is the precious tabernacle, which Christ allows Himself to be Personally reserved in the form of the divine Host for worship or worthy dispensing to the faithful for Communion. The altar and tabernacle area are beautifully adorned as is proper for the focus of all, which is on God who is there.

As God instructed Moses from the burning bush, the area immediately surrounding His presence is Holy Ground and is restricted. Thus, in the house of prayer, we see the altar and tabernacle separated and elevated from the general seating area (nave), for it is a sacred space. An altar rail is provided at the elevation of the sanctuary for the faithful to kneel in worship when presenting themselves to their God for Communion or adoration.

As we see, our examination of this house of prayer (fruit) leaves no doubt that its structure and purpose is to bring the faithful's consciousness to center on God (theocentric) and the worship of Him in the most holy Eucharist. Moreover, hundreds of years had confirmed that it had been superbly designed to accomplish that very purpose.

Now permit us to fast forward to the contemporary churches that we are attending today. Although the alterations came about incrementally (step by step), we find that our present churches for the most part are drastically distorted from the original and are really but a mutant of the house of prayer above described.

What is the substance of the "changes" initiated and mandated (none of which were requested by the faithful) by liturgists in the name of "renewal"? A "renewal" represented as enhancing worship and the Church.

First, "renewal" had the great altars removed and a freestanding unadorned table installed in its place. "Renewal" then had the "holy of holies" (tabernacle) set away from the altar, or, even totally removed from the sanctuary to be put in a separate chapel.5

From there (to the great discomfort and distress of many of the faithful), "renewal" saw to it that the altar rails were arbitrarily removed thereby not only eliminating the practical means for the faithful to kneel in worship when receiving their Lord, but opening up the sacred space of the sanctuary to the pedestrian.

Then "renewal" dedicated itself to moving the altar (now called the Lord's table) away from the apse (head) of the church to relocate it in the nave amongst the people. The sanctuary itself, then, really ceased to exist at all.

"Renewal" re-designated the altar furniture. Most significant is that the Mass presider's6 chair is now enlarged and given the place of prominence during the service. The "renewal" also lessens the pulpit reserved for consecrated churchmen to that of a common lectern to be utilized by all the baptized as well.

Where it was possible, and in total disobedience to legitimate Church norms, the "renewal" removed the kneelers from the pews of whole churches. Attempting to worship without kneeling is to be asked to behave unnaturally. One is compelled to inquire: What does that say for "renewals" claims for the enhancement of worship?

We could go on with "renewals" rendering on such as bells, statuary, beautiful stained glass windows, decoration (suppression of), etc., but just that which is put forth above gives a very vivid picture to any who have eyes to see. "Woe to they that call evil good, and good evil..." Isaiah 5: 20

We make a plea here for true honesty and candidness, your Grace. We now have before us the two church structures briefly but accurately described.

1) The church prescribed by Christ as a "house of prayer" whereby through its design, construction and appointments draws all centering and worship to Christ and His real presence in the Eucharist.

2) We now have the "renewal" house where Christ's centering has been deliberately set aside. We then examine closely, one by one, the "changes" initiated by "renewal" and we find that every "change" made was to accomplish a diminishing of focus on Christ in the "temples" where Mass was to be held. Christ is no longer placed at the center! You may even have to search for His divine presence! May we respectfully ask: "can this do other than offend God the Father?"

Behavior of the Faithful

Upon entering Christ's traditional house of prayer, the faithful are instantaneously drawn to focus on the divinity by the very alignment of the church itself. All immediate attention is drawn to the large ornately adorned altar and sacred tabernacle prominently dominating the very head of the interior. Its being reserved in the elevated sanctuary and delineated from the rest by a noble kneeling rail, informs all those of Faith that it is sacred space and that, indeed, prayers and worship is what this setting beckons for. The awe, majesty and transcendence is not just viewed, it is felt.

Consequential to this holy environment it is only natural that you find the faithful predisposed to prayer, worship and reverence within this house of prayer. And that is precisely what you witnessed of them. Outside of actual services being performed, silence was the standard respecting the preeminence of prayer and worship. Modest and clean attire was observed in that no one had any doubts about their being before Christ in His real Person in such a church.

Mass, of course, was officiated over by those consecrated by God to be worthy of Christ exercising His eternal priesthood through them as they too had acquired through ordination the ontological and sacred mark of the priest. Only a priest can offer valid sacrifice to God. Ministers suffice for other functions. And therein lies the fundamental divergence that occurred between Christ's house of prayer and the "renewal" house whose undeniable fruits are before us today. The former centered on Christ and His propitiatory7 sacrifice, the latter on ministerial works and the supper (meal).

Now the "renewalist" will deny they have initiated policy or instruction, which has served to redirect emphasis from Christ to man in the liturgy. Being insurgents you cannot expect that they would claim otherwise. What is not deniable is the fruits of their handiwork we have before our very eyes in every parish in our archdiocese today. The presence of which refutes their every denial.

The catalyst that provided the "renewalist" the opening for the humanist/modernist assault on the Mass was contained in one sentence in number 14 of the Vatican II document: "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" (Sacrosanctum Concilium). It reads: "In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else, for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit." (Emphasis ours)

Taking from this text, that which was not expressed with specific clarity (some say purposely so), the "renewalist" redirects the instruction, which says to promote the faithful to participate by being present at Mass, to that of mandating that the faithful must be "active" in their participation at Mass. A slick refocus, indeed. We hear bugled ad nausea the mantra: "full and active participation by all the people," by the liturgist/renewalist cadre as being an immutable sea change doctrine emanating from Vatican II.

If the intent is to shift the emphasis from God to the world (man) in the liturgy, then it is necessary to divert the individual from a motivation to prayer and worship to that of action and camaraderie. The deportment associated with prayer, piety and worship, e.g., kneeling, genuflection, etc., must be suppressed and discouraged, to eventually be eliminated. The faithful's internal need for rendering to his Creator shall be satisfied by directing them to personal "actions" associated with the many so-called "ministries" established specifically for this purpose. The people and Office in our diocese responsible for promulgating this nefarious deception of the faithful shall be discussed in more detail further on.

Having accomplished by mandate the deed of diverting the faithful from worship to "action," we now reap what has been sown and the fruit is withered and lacking, especially of the transcendent. We see the "renewal" house as bountiful in hellos, handshakes and hospitality, a community celebrating itself, but barren of prayer, worship and religious piety. We hear strange terms uttered from our "renewalist's" such as: "When doing the liturgy...!" "Action" supplants worship. "Doing" is activity with the "community" in ritual activism, whereas worship is our rendering to God in prayer and adoration that which is due to Him. We would quote from Mediator Dei, the great encyclical on the Mass issued by Pope Pius XII:

"24. But the chief element of divine worship must be interior. For we must always live in Christ and give ourselves to Him completely, so that in Him, with Him and through Him the heavenly Father may be duly glorified... You recall, Venerable Brethren, how the divine Master expels from the sacred temple, as unworthily to worship there, people who pretend to honor God with nothing but neat and well turned phrases...It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him..."

The attire displayed (exhibited?) in our "renewal" churches runs the gamut of what you would expect to find from those attending any informal social event. Attire they would never consider wearing if they knew they were going to be coming before the real Person of Christ. Mass now being treated as a societal celebration, demanding "active" participation, assures, of course, the elimination of silence, which is a necessary state conducive to prayer and worship. Such blasé comportment reveals precisely the falsehood the faithful have been assimilated into on the critical subject of the real presence of the Person of Christ in the Eucharist, both by word and example ("Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi"—let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief).

The sacred space of the sanctuary in the "renewal" house is no longer the center of worship but, rather, the center of activity. The choir is removed from the loft to be displayed in the sanctuary, not that this improves their performance, and does contribute to distraction, but more importantly, that the assembly may witness to their "action" as well. All ministry must be visible and acknowledged. More humanity is inserted in and out of the sanctuary in the form of the performing ministries (referred to by some as the sanctuary shuffle). We could go on and on your Grace, but if such disclosures serve to dismay yourself, as it does to any Catholic who knows and loves their Faith, we take pleasure in departing from further reflections on the Mass "action" debacle as it is too often performed in our churches today.

The "Renewal" Alliance

As addressed earlier, your faithful are fully aware that your Grace is encumbered with responsibilities and offices, even outside of your diocese, that demand much of your time and severely tax your ability to apply hands on teaching and governing in your own sheepfold. Such extended obligations rule it unavoidable that you be heavily dependent on a myriad of subsidiary chancery offices to teach and govern on your behalf. That is unfortunate for a bishop has fearsome personal responsibility before God and His judgment of that bishop does not provide for a lessening of his own accountability because of the possible failures of subordinates acting in his stead when it comes to the all important subjects of Faith and morals. A bishop's vulnerability to eternal consequences generated by the acts of certain minions misinforming the faithful on Faith and morals is a very real and terrifying reality. Because of this, and in holy charity, it is the sacred responsibility of any of the knowledgeable faithful to inform their Bishop when and if they become factually aware that he is being ill served by those representing his office by their furthering information or teaching that jeopardizes the Faith and morals of his faithful.

As can be seen by this writing, those imbued with the "renewalists" ideology steeped in humanist modernism are militantly antagonistic to the Churches doctrine, especially as it relates to worship and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as specified by the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Moreover, they are quite committed and pertinacious in their determination to undermine and overthrow these teachings. It is not merely to allude that such persons are enemies within. Rather, it is to state an undeniable fact!

Your Excellency, we entertain no hesitancy in declaring to you that it is just such persons of the condemned modernist ideology that have been ensconced in the chairs of governing in the Seattle archdiocesan "Liturgy Office" for the last two decades. Many of your faithful are fully aware of this scandal. Moreover, this very serious indictment is not grounded in my, or others opinion. Rather, the charge is substantiated by the words and deeds put forth by the individuals themselves. This by their own hand in writing, or in their words, which have been tape—recorded and retained in our possession as matters of record.

I had put some of this information in your hands a few months back and you graciously expressed interest in getting back to me on the subject (letter). You apparently were taken up on other serious matters, possibly that which is dominating the media today, and it went no further at that time.

We are at this point in time, however, again being besought by another assault on our rights to worship in the Mass. From this event, the decision was made to formally address your Excellency on the whole subject of the preceding, and now continuing debasing of worship emanating from the humanist operatives in the Liturgy Office.

The two miscreants we are specifically addressing are long time officialdom of the Liturgy Office in the persons of Ms. Carolyn Lassek and Fr. Jan Larson. Ms. Lassek being the current Director of the Liturgy Office, and Fr. Larson n being the former Director of Worship and currently the official consultant to the Liturgy Office. Fr. Larson also publishes a weekly column in the archdiocesan newspaper giving instruction on the liturgy (Mass).

In fairness it is very probably true, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that Fr. Larson is Ms. Lassek's ideological mentor and leader. As such this writing will be directed to Fr. Larson.

As was mentioned above, modernists reject the reality of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the form of Transubstantiation. This rejection is one of the hallmarks of the modernist heretic. Fr. Jan Larson is one holding this disbelief. The modernist churchman, being a subversive within, will not expose himself by refuting a dogma of the Church. In his efforts to overthrow he must employ deception and lying (lets say it like it is). When confronted by their seditious testimony, the modernist is quite dexterous in the employment of corkscrew logic and elasticized explanations leading to non-specific ambiguity. Experience and the empirical record have proven Fr. Larson to being just such a person. For example, we have on audiotape Fr. Larson deliberately lying in his reply to a question posed to him on kneeling at Mass by a person attending a class he was teaching on the liturgy.8 Fr. Larson was there in his teaching capacity as an official representative of the Liturgy Office of the Seattle Archdiocese

Here again we would remind you, your Grace, that Fr. Larson's accuser is his own written and spoken testimony. As to the holy and divine real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we have the following public statement of Fr. Larson: "The Eucharist, after all, is not primarily a sacred object but an action of the community..." 9 That statement (teaching) of Fr. Larson is heretical in substance and blasphemous in implication. The Holy Eucharist IS the substance of the divine Person of Christ, and as a consequence, IS the most "sacred object" the Church is privileged by Jesus to possess, worship and safeguard. That is immutable Church dogma, not opinion.

What Fr. Larson does reveal in his above falsehood, however, is the strategy being employed by the "renewalists" to subvert Church teaching on the Eucharist. Moreover, we see its consistency repeated in current notices and papers emerging from the Liturgy Office. That tactic is: The studied effort of reducing the Eucharist from object (God/real presence) to "action" (people/assembly). Such machinations have but one objective and it has no other end result than the demeaning of the divine Object of Christ in the Eucharist from that of the transcendent God, to that of being in parity with man. This also accounts for the blasphemous parroting of the "renewalists" that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is analogous to His presence in the assembly, the Bible, the "presider," etc. In reality the difference is immeasurable Christ is in the Eucharist as First Cause, the Creator of everything from nothing, all Grace, and the sole dispenser of Grace. God is present in His secondary causes (man, Bible, altar, priest) by His powers of creating them and maintaining them in existence. In this manner, God is present in Satan as well. It is whether man has the presence of God's Grace within him that is the meaningful measure.

Going hand in hand with denying the divinity in the Eucharist, of course, will be the overt resistance to any gesture or posture that expresses worship of that divinity. The most distasteful of these to the "renewalist" very likely being the posture of kneeling. Kneeling, of course, being synonymous with worship.

The Liturgy Office, and particularly Fr. Larson, have been active and vocal in their efforts, recorded for some years now, at instituting the standing posture in place of kneeling. They clandestinely gave support to "renewal" pastors who arbitrarily mandated standing in their parishes for the Canon of the Mass. This was open and arrogant disobedience to the official liturgical law of the Church. It is this liturgical anarchy that spawned the puerile iconoclast mentality of eliminating kneelers altogether from the pews of new and remodeled churches in the diocese.

Let there be no doubt about this. Recent flyers from the Liturgy Office itself acknowledge that the standing posture gives the "sign of respect and honor," while the kneeling posture signifies "adoration." Man, in a worthy state, is due respect and honor. God, however, is always and everywhere owed worship and adoration before all else! Kneeling before God, especially at His reception and immediately thereafter in thanksgiving, is the natural disposition of man. To call for posture otherwise is to violate the right conscience of those knowing the truth that God must be worshiped and adored.

This brings us back, your Excellency, to the apprehension and distress of a good many of the faithful over the "adaptation" you have approved, at the behest of the Liturgy Office, further restricting the laudable practice of kneeling (worship). The mandate being instituted that the faithful remain standing after the Agnus Dei and maintain standing after receiving the divine Host and until the last person has received Communion. The expressed rationale for this behavior is the somewhat bazaar explanation that you remain standing in respect for those still standing while proceeding to Communion. What that is really saying is that you are to stand in respect for man before it is allowed that you kneel in worship to God who is there in His Person! It can be seen no other way and that is the reverse of right reason (natural law). We would ask: would any person be standing if Christ caused Himself to be transfigured in the Eucharist at a Mass? May we volunteer: they would not be on their knees, as it was with the apostles they would be prostrate!

Beyond that, and with great respect, your Excellency, we would plea that three (3) very negative realities come together in this unfortunate directive.

1) You bring to an abrupt end a pious and commendable practice (kneeling/worship) that is an established tradition of the faithful. The Vatican itself has lauded and encouraged such comportment being retained by the faithful.

2) You infringe on the religious conscience of the person who instinctively knows he/she should be kneeling in thanksgiving and worship at this time.

3) You ask obedience in conforming to a practice where it would appear that Faith would hold precedence over obedience. Otherwise, Faith comes before obedience where an act may be considered harmful to ones Faith, such as where homage to man was seen giving primacy over that rendered to God. In such instances, then, one is not bound to obedience and it would be unjust that his bishop demands it of him without being provided teaching in truth that would prove that conviction to be faulted.

In Conclusion

Yes, the fruit has now come of season, and to the inspector who knows what it should be, it shows to being fetid fruit indeed. There is a wise axiom that says: "You do not see the forest for the trees." Otherwise, we too often tend to be drawn to the minutiae and fail to perceive the overall true picture.

Our minutiae has been the unending "changes" by little steps holding our attention, whilst failing to discern what path those steps were relentlessly and deliberately leading us on to. Collecting ourselves, stepping back and collating all the "changes" collectively, we find the real picture is quite the opposite of what our expectations had been channeled to believe.

In the sacred Mass we are not being brought closer to God but in fact, being drawn away from Him. Worship (God) has been displaced in order to esteem "action" (man). We now see that we have not been on the path to "renewal, but that of ruin! The "fruit" will not deceive; it is the ultimate "truth in packaging."

We reflect: "God would never let this happen to the Church." WRONG! Scripture is replete with example and warning of the justice meted out to those of His chosen ones who rejected Him for the world. "You adulterous people, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God. Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world, becometh an enemy of God." James 4: 4

In His infinite wisdom, God inflicts the more devastating punishments by allowing to the rebellious the very lawless thing they stipulate. Man, then, with God having withdrawing His assistance (Grace) becomes subject to his "fallen nature." No greater disaster can befall man for from that point his faulted understanding will corrupt and destroy him as well as his followers

I have come to believe that the Church is presently in this state. Enough of His consecrated hierarchy had turned to the world so He allowed them possession of their worldly lusts. The unerring result of God's withdrawal from this corrupted leadership is now bursting forth before the world. The Church is not spared this horror and scandal.

Every vital statistic on Faith, e.g., Mass attendance, Baptisms, Ordinations, Religious (men & women), Confessions, Marriage/divorce, Seminaries, etc., all in severe and ever worsening decline. Every statistic on deadly Morals, e.g., Sodomy, Pedophilia, Adultery, Fornication, Abortion, Contraception, etc., all in horrific escalation.

God will eventually bring a stop to it, there is no doubting, but before this the Church will be chastised to its knees in just retribution for the treachery of churchmen within.

I shall never depart our beloved Church, your Excellency. But my conscience is now informed to the extent that I do not want to participate or cooperate in any further acts at Mass, which I now see as being detrimental to worship. I am not able to journey to far away churches that hold the Traditional Mass.

I would thus beg your Grace that I, and others of sincere conscience relating to this matter, be granted a dispensation to arrange with the pastor of my parish the authorization to kneel at the times specified by the "General Instruction" (GIRM) without the "adaptation," and also to arrange (as the Vatican enthusiastically approves) the reception of the Blessed Eucharist in a kneeling position in a manner arranged that would not disrupt the Mass in any way.

I pray for your consideration and assistance in this heartfelt concern of conscience your Excellency. Be assured that you are in my prayers daily.

To all in Christ through Mary,


Erven E. Park

+++

FOOTNOTES:
1 The local church now even has direct ties to the government through social action and welfare programs, both State and Federal, involving huge sums of money, which in turn make their own demands upon their receipt.
2 Heb. 10: 31
3 Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II, 4 Dec. 1963
4 Christ was speaking from the temple of God where He had just cast out those who had defiled it.
5 "The tabernacle and the altar were destined, one for the other." Pope Pius XII
6 Priest or celebrant is no longer used; the terms are minister, president or presider. This conforms to Protestant doctrine in that priest represents sacrifice and the Protestants deny this taking place in a Eucharistic service.
7 One of the four ends of the Sacrifice of the Mass, whose propitiatory (placate or appease) power extends to sin, to satisfaction and punishment for the living, and to punishment for the dead. Modern Catholic Dictionary
© Copyright 2002-2005 Northwest Laity for Truth.