President's Report

We are pleased to inform you that last 27 March 2006, the 8th Division of the Court of Appeals issued a Writ Preliminary Injunction against the City of Parañaque and Mayor Florencio M. Bernabe Jr. The Injunction is part of the legal reliefs we petitioned the court for, in order to regain control of our gates, bring back peace and order, and restore the privacy of our village.

We quote: ...“UBFHAI has continuously administered, regulated, and maintained the use of the private roads inside the BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision, even employing security guards to man their major gates, issuing passes and tickets for entry into the subdivision for certain purposes and charging fees set by the association. As owners or administrators of private roads, appellants are entitled to continue to enjoy exclusive access therein for their own protection and security and to regulate its use by non-residents…”

From this decision, we would like to highlight two very important facts that we have repeatedly pointed out to the commercial establishments, to the city officials, and to all those who wish turn our subdivision into something other than what we dreamed of: 1) that UBFHAI has been performing the role of administrator from its inception as a mother organization of all enclaves and associations (a fact that the Supreme Court, the CA, and even the BIR have previously recognized in their respective rulings) and 2) that the roads within BF Homes Subdivision are undeniably private. We have said this many times in the past. We pray that this will finally put an end to any further attempts at denying our rights to keep our village private.

It took us almost seven months to attain the relief we sought, but we knew we were right. Homeowners’ rights cannot and should not be trivialized, least of all by the people who are sworn to uphold those rights.

It is just ironic that in our struggle to preserve the residential character of our subdivision, the local government chose to be an obstacle rather than an ally. Ironic, because as taxpayers, we deserve better governance, and instead suffered the indignity of having our rights trampled upon. But we did not take it sitting down. We said we’d fight back, and we did. We fought back to regain our gates. We wanted our privacy back. We wanted to restore the peace and harmony of our community. The CA’s decision is the first step towards in that direction.

And while we wait for the courts to resolve the issue, we are going to roll up our sleeves, and get down to the business of restoring the order we once had. The tasks are many. It’s time to clean up the mess created by the forcible opening of our gates.

Stemming the tide of commercialism is like the legendary King Canute ordering the waves of the sea to roll back. Over the last five months, the Parañaque City government has been approving the permits of commercial establishments without UBFHAI’s prior approval. The traffic situation within our village, as well as our tranquility, peace and order, these have been compromised as a result.

The other problems are just as formidable. No water, the growing number of informal settlers inside our subdivision, the menace of prohibited drugs, the proliferation of girlie bars, clubs, and motels masquerading as apartelles. Unruly and arrogant tricycle drivers. Illegal tricycle terminals. Over-speeding motorists. Illegal constructions. Ambulant vendors.

And the crime rate is yet another matter. Criminal activities occurring within our village spiked in the last six months. Our homeowners and residents have fallen victim in various incidents, ranging from petty theft to snatchings, akyat-bahay. Carnappings. And then there was the Capili incident.

We are confident that we can bring back the peaceful neighborhood we once had. But we can do it better, faster, with your continued support and cooperation.

Our community is blessed with committed, talented, and selfless individuals; politicians, active and retired military and government officials, business executives, lawyers and opinion makers in the press. We call on them now to take the role of participants rather than spectators; to be a part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. Call us and lend a hand.

We would like to thank the many homeowners and residents, for their patience and support. For those who kept the faith. For those who rooted for us from the sidelines as we hurdled obstacle after daunting obstacle. For your prayers, and your trust.

Celso L. Reyes, President

United BF Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

CA issues injunctive relief; returns control of gates to homeowners

The Court of Appeals, penned by Justice Villarama, with Justices Edgardo Sundiam and Japar Dimaampao of the 8th Division [CA-R.R. CV NO. 85885] concurring, issues injunctive relief last Monday, March 27, 2006, to restrain the City of Parañaque from enforcing Parañaque Ordinance 00-15(672).

We quote the dispositve portion of the resolution:

“UBFHAI has continuously administered, regulated and maintained the use of the private roads inside the BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision even employing security guards to man their major gates, issuing passes and tickets for entry into the subdivision for certain purposes and charging fees set by the association. As owners or administrators of private roads, appellants are entitled to continue to enjoy exclusive access therein for their own protection and security and to regulate its use by non-residents within the limits prescribed by law and administrative rules. Appellants have sufficiently shown that the ordinance directing the opening of the subdivision gates has actually caused them injury due to the unmitigated flow of vehicular traffic and pedestrians, and proliferation of crimes that threatened the security of their private homes and properties. Precisely, the law has tasked the owner or developer to initiate the organization of a homeowners’ association for the purpose of promoting and protecting their mutual interest and assist in their community development.

“Under the foregoing premises, the Court deems it proper and justified to maintain the status quo ante until resolution of the controversy involving the validity of Ordinance No. 00-15 (672), Series of 2000 of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Parañaque.

“ACCORDINGLY, and as prayed for by the petitioners-appellants, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued, upon posting by petitioners-appellants of a BOND in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) in case or surety issued by a reputable bonding company and of indubitable solvency with terms and conditions, acceptable to this Court, within five (5) days from notice hereof, enjoining the City Mayor and the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Parañaque, the Philippine National Police operatives, and any or all persons claiming authority under them, from enforcing or implementing Ordinance No. 00-15 (672), Series of 2000, until the final disposition of this case.

“The Clerk of Court of this Division is hereby DIRECTED to cause the immediate service of this Resolution to all the parties through personal service.”

UBFHAI is arranging the posting of the bond and shortly thereafter take over complete control of the 8 gates of the subdivision.

Conspiracy

In his letter of February 15, 2006, to Muntinlupa Mayor Jaime Fresnedi, Parañaque Mayor Florencio M. Bernabe, Jr., confirmed his verbal request for the destruction and the opening of the perimeter gate at Tirona Street of United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc.(UBFHAI). We offer the following comments:

“This is just a follow-up to our conversation last Sunday via our cellphones in which we discussed… the increasing number of complaints that my office has been receiving regarding the use of Tirona gate as a two-way access route for residents living in both Parañaque and Alabang, Muntinlupa sides of BF Homes.”

This is the height of insensitivity. The Parañaque mayor ignores the rising incidents of crime against person and property and the daily horrendous traffic jams and the clamor of the residents for the closure of the subdivision’s main gates. Since the forcible opening of the main gates, residents have to protect themselves. The police are nowhere to be found. When calling for police assistance, residents have to pick up the “responding policeman” from the outpost, otherwise, sorry na lang.

“It appears that the United BF Homeowners Association (UBFHAI), a private organization which, until late last year, has been functioning as the umbrella organization of all the 71 homeowners associations in BF Homes … Sometime in August last year, we implemented City Ordinance No. 00-15, Series of 2000 and opened the major roads of BF Homes-Parañaque to the public. In doing so, we effectively took over from UBFHAI the function and responsibility of manning the gates of the subdivision’s major roads in the interest of order and public service…”

The Supreme Court on October 24, 1994, rendered a final and executory decision/resolution that UBFHAI is “the organized umbrella organization and sole representative of all homeowners in BF Homes, Parañaque Subdivision…” [G.R. No. L-117370]. Since when can an ordinance overrule the decision of the Supreme Court?

“In implementing said Ordinance we took cognizance of mounting complaints from homeowners against excessive exactions and impositions, harassment and high-handedness of UBFHI in dealing with homeowners and business establishments.”

Huh? The “mounting complaints” are from the 300 or so business establishment owners, the majority of whom do not even live in BF Homes. What they cannot do in their community, they do to ours. These business establishments are illegally intruding into residential areas when the city government passed Ordinance 97-08 over the objection of 85% of homeowners. In a participative democracy, the will of the majority prevails. How about taking “cognizance of the mounting complaints” of the majority?

BF Homes is a private subdivision and the rights vested in homeowners under Presidential Decree 957 such as the right to enjoy and the entitlement to the promises of the developer (BFHI), i.e., the right to live in a residential neighborhood, a condition written into and annotated in our titles as notice to the world devolve on and can be exercised by UBFHAI as the duly recognized representative of all homeowners. PD-957 has not been repealed by the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), therefore, we can enforce our own guidelines which are not contrary to law over and above mayor's or building permits.

“To be sure, the legality of said Ordinance has been questioned by UBFHAI in court. In all such occasions, the courts have ruled with finality the constitutionality of the local law using previous Supreme Court ruling in similar cases as precedents.

The mayor is misinformed. Ordinance 00-15 was implemented even without implementing rules and regulations as required by the Ordinance. And the appellate court has yet to rule on UBFHAI’s petition for a restraining order. Hindi pa tapos and laban. [The fight is not yet over].

Homeowners are the beneficial owners of roads and open spaces of BF Homes, having paid for them when they purchased their properties. The local government cannot simply take over private property with out due process, that is, by expropriation or compensation. “Not too infrequently, the government is tempted to take legal shortcuts to solve the problems of the people. But even when the government is armed with the best of intention, we cannot allow it to run roughshod over the rule of law”[Justice J. Puno].

“I suggest…that the UBFHAI erected outpost located at Tirona Street…be dismantled…[t]his will do away with perennial problem of homeowners of having to secure car stickers at exorbitant costs.

The mayor considers BF Homes’ vehicular “sticker” for homeowner costing P150 exorbitant as well pass through “sticker” costing P750 but Alabang Hill’s P800 is not. The logic boggles the mind.

The destruction of the Tirona perimeter gate is similar to the case of the Friendship Route ordinance where the Las Piñas government demolished the perimeter walls enclosing both ends of CRM Luz Street to give public vehicular and pedestrian traffic unimpeded access thereto. The appellate court issued injunctive relief only, there being no prayer for nullity of the said ordinance. In granting injunctive relief, the appellate court made clear that the questioned Ordinance is unconstitutional. “[U]nder the Fundamental Law, stringent are the standards which must be observed before the proprietary rights of the few may be disturbed to the benefit the many. Sadly, we find the questioned Ordinance wanting in this regard. Thus, we cannot but strike it down. For if it be tyranny to place the desires of a minority above those of the multitudes, it is no less tyranny to trample upon the rights of the few for the advantage of the many in gross disregard of one of the bedrock principles which differentiates our government from that of an autocracy: the right to due process.” [Justice R. A. Brawner].

Like the Las Piñas Friendship Route, Parañaque Ordinance 00-15 cannot pass the test of constitutionality. Mayor Jun Bernabe may get sympathetic ruling from the lower court, but to be sure, the highest court will strike it down. What's more, the 85% irate homeowners will not be sympathetic to his re-election bid next year.

Which Way To Turn

The previous post “Mass Facing The People” elicited the questions: Does the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal require Mass facing the people? Or do priests and the faithful have a right to Mass celebrated in the traditional manner?

This is the [edited for brevity] response from the article of Rev. Joseph Fessio, SJ:

The new General Instruction of the Roman Missal was prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and submitted to the Holy Father for his approval, which he gave on Holy Thursday, April 20, 2000. The congregation addresses this question of the authority of bishops in the matter of legitimate liturgical options in an official letter (Protocol No. 564/00/L) of April 10, 2000. It is not possible that this letter could have been “superseded” by the General Instruction. It is from the same person responsible for the drafting of the General Instruction, which was surely submitted to the Holy Father some time before he reviewed it and gave his approval, and therefore prior to this official document.

The relevant parts of the document, signed by both Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and Archbishop Francesco Pio Tamburrino, the Secretary of the Congregation, state:

· “This Dicastery [i.e. the Congregation] wishes to state that Holy Mass may be celebrated versus populum [facing the people] or versus apsidem [facing the apse]. Both positions are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct.”

· “It should be borne in mind that there is no preference expressed in the liturgical legislation for either position. As both positions enjoy the favor of law, the legislation may not be invoked to say that one position or the other accords more closely with the mind of the Church.”

· Referring explicitly to Bishop Foley’s Norms for Televising the Mass in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama: “The publication of such norms falls within the responsibility of the Diocesan Bishop in virtue of his role as moderator of the Sacred Liturgy in the particular Church entrusted to his pastoral care. In exercising this responsibility, even though he is unable to exclude or mandate the use of a legitimate option [italics added], the Diocesan Bishop is competent to provide further guidance to priests in their choice of the various options of the Roman Rite.”

In summary: celebrating Holy Mass in the traditional manner, ad orientem, which Cardinal Ratzinger has called “not something accidental” but “a rediscovery of something essential, in which Christian liturgy expresses its permanent orientation,” is at the very least a legitimate option “in accord with liturgical law” and “to be considered correct.” No bishop is able “to exclude or mandate the use of a legitimate option.”

The inescapable corollary is that Bishop Foley is not correct when he criticizes, in his attempted decree, those who encourage priests “on their own initiative, without the permission of their local bishops, to take liberties with the Mass by celebrating in a manner called ad orientem, that is, with their backs to the people.” In fact any priest may, “on his own initiative,” so celebrate the Mass. It is not “taking liberties,” but rather choosing a legitimate option which no bishop has authority to exclude. And they are not celebrating Mass “with their backs to the people” but rather are facing with the people the Lord who comes as the Oriens. And no “permission of their local bishops” is required.

Mass Facing The People

Mass Facing The People

A practice which was the rarest curiosity until Vatican II has become so completely accepted that there is scarcely a church in the country where architects have not been called to redesign the altar and its surrounding sanctuary in conformity, as it is said, “with the Vatican decrees.”… The clergy as a body seem to have convinced themselves that such a form of celebration is possibly required for the celebration of the reformed liturgy. The claim that traditional altars must be destroyed and replaced with tables in order to conform to Church law is the standard response to complaints from the faithful. Partisans have no hesitation in stating publicly why “the altar should be turned towards the people at Mass.” “The short answer is because the bishops of the world meeting at the Vatican Council considered it necessary liturgical change so that the laity could become more involved in the offering.”

The truth is that the concept of a celebration deliberately oriented to face the people was an invention of Martin Luther. It had never been the ancient custom of the Catholic Church. As with most of the propaganda in favor of the liturgical revolution, the arguments in favor of Mass facing the people are no more than gratuitous assertions devoid of any factual basis.

There is no rule, rubric, regulation or law in existence within the Roman Rite stipulating that Mass shall be celebrated facing the people. The rubrics of the Novus Ordo Missae specifically envisage the traditional practice and instruct the priest to turn to face the congregation at various points and then to turn back to the altar, i.e., numbers 107, 115, 116, 122, 198, and 199 of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (Institutio Generalis).

However, although there is no law commanding Mass to be celebrated facing the people, Article 262 of the Institutio Generalis could be interpreted as a mandate for altar smashing. A frequent criticism of the pre-conciliar Church is that it was “legalistic.” The pre-conciliar Church certainly did have rules and regulations and enforced them universally and impartially. There is a different form of legalism in the Conciliar Church. Rules and regulations are frequently invoked when they can be used to undermine the traditional faith, but they are frequently ignored with impunity by Liberals. Thus sanctions would be taken against a priest saying the Tridentine Mass but not against a priest giving Communion in the hand even before this had been authorized by the Vatican. Where smashing the altars is concerned, the legalism of the Conciliar Church would operate as follows. Its spokesmen would concede that there is no law ordering Mass facing the people but would claim that Article 262 of the Institutio Generalis stipulates that the main altar should be freestanding to make such a celebration possible – even if it is never used for such a celebration.

There is not a single reference to Mass facing the people anywhere in the documents of Vatican II. The first explicit reference to Mass facing the people appeared in the Instruction Inter Oecumenici promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 26 September 1964. “It is better (praestat ut) for the main altar to be constructed away from the wall so that one can move round it without difficulty, and so that it can (peragi posit) be used for a celebration facing the people (No. 91).

The reference to the construction of altars would appear to make it clear that this article is applicable only to altars in new churches. However, the preceding article (No. 90) refers to “building new churches and in repairing and adapting old ones.” This article bases itself upon Article 124 of the Vatican II Liturgy Constitution. However, those who care to check the Constitution will find that this particular article does not refer to “repairing or adapting” old churches but only to the building of new ones. When reading the various documents purporting to implement the Liturgy Constitution it is always worth checking references back to the Constitution to discover whether it says what these documents allege.

When the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (Institutio Generalis) was published in 1969, the process was taken a step further. Article 262 is identical with Article 91 of the Instruction Inter Oecumenici with one crucial exception, the words “praestat ut” (it is better) have been removed so that it now states that: “The main altar should be constructed away from the wall so that one can move round it without difficulty and so that it can be used for a celebration facing the people.” A reference is then given to Inter Oecumenici, Article 91, which, as has been shown, does not say that the altar should be constructed away from the wall but that it is better that it should.

Another point of interest here is that both Inter Oecumenici and the Institutio Generalis were produced by Archbishop (then Father Bugnini)’s Consilium even though they were approved by the Pope and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The manner in which it “developed” the teaching of the Council on a freestanding altar and Mass facing the people provides a revealing example of the manner in which the Consilium did its work. This can be summarized as follows:

a. Vatican II does not mention a freestanding altar or Mass facing the people.

b. Article 124 of the Liturgy Constitution includes the recommendation that: “When churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.” There is no mention of altars.

c. In 1964, the Consilium expands this sentence to include adapting old churches, brings up the subject of altars, and states that “it is better” that they should be freestanding.

d. In 1969, the Consilium states in the Institutio Generalis that the main altar should be freestanding and cites its own 1964 document (Inter Oecumenici), which does not state this, as its authority.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, criticizes the notion of priest as “presider” as though everything depends on a mere master of ceremonies. Instead he says,

“The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”.

Whatever the beliefs and motives of priests who turned their altars round, it does not change the fact that they have acquiesced in another step in the Protestantization of our liturgy, a step which Protestants will certainly welcome as such. [Quoted from The Great Façade].

What's Wrong With This Picture?

The picture you see on the right was taken from the web edition of the Philippine Daily Inquirer showing Infanta Bishop Julio Xavier Labayen (left) celebrating Mass for detained Army Brig Gen. Danilo Lim (second from right) in his custodial house in Fort Bonifacio. With the them are lawyer Fred Bentulan, Jose Albert, Hero Vaswani, of the Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya, Lim’s wife Aloy and daughter Aika.

What's wrong with this picture?

First of all, his Excellency is improperly vested for celebrating Mass. He has a stole over collared shirt, probably a polo barong. According to General Instructions of the Roman Missal:

“Unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole, is the vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other rites immediately connected with Mass.” [GIRM 299]

The Ceremonial of Bishops [CB] also describes the priest’s vestment in this way:

“Unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole, is the vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other rites immediately connected with Mass.” [CB 66]

Canon 929 further stipulates:

“In celebrating and administering the Eucharist, priests and deacons are to wear the liturgical vestments prescribed by the rubrics.”

For those who think bishops are exempted from the GIRM, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) of the Second Vatican Council clearly states the right to regulate the Mass is reserved to the Holy See and that no one has the right to change the rubrics of the Mass:

“No one has the right to add, change, or remove any portion of the Mass.” [SC 22].

Secondly, his Excellency is holding hands with the congregants! Where in the rubrics of the Mass or in the GIRM does it provide that the celebrant hold hands with the members of the congregation?

Thirdly, why is the Infanta bishop spending so much time outside of his diocese? He’s supposed to be ministering to his flock in his diocese, but it seems that he’s always in the newspapers attending to political rallies and to other ostensibly non-religious matters. If his Excellency is more concerned about political issues than sheperding his flock, perhaps he should resign his post and allow the Holy Father to appoint in his place a man in the mold of the late Ignatius Cadinal Kung.

Given the quality of our bishops and the way they conduct themselves, it is no surprise that the Philippines does not have an abundance of vocations.

Ignatius Cardinal Kung Pin-Mei

John Paul II created four in pectore cardinals during his pontificate, but we only know the identities of three.

The first came at his first consistory, held on 27 May 1979. But it wasn’t until 1991 when the late Pope revealed that the red hat belonged to Bishop Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei of Shanghai, who had been imprisoned by Chinese authorities for the better part of three decades before being freed and moving to Connecticut in 1988.

A month before his 90th birthday, at the 1991 consistory Kung ascended the steps of the Paul VI Hall to receive his biretta from John Paul. Despite the Pope’s prodding him to stay standing, Kung knelt as the crowd of 9,000 rose and cheered wildly, drowning out the formula of conferral. Kung’s story made him the “star” of the gathering. He returned to the US, where he died in 2000 at the age of 98.

The story of Cardinal Kung is the story of a faithful shepherd and of a hero. Cardinal Kung was a man who refused to renounce God and his Church despite the consequences of a life sentence from the Chinese communist government. Below is his brief but moving story.

Cardinal Kung was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Shanghai, and the Apostolic Administrator of Souchou and Nanking since 1950, a post he held until his death. He was ordained a priest almost 70 years ago on May 28, 1930, and consecrated a Bishop 50 years ago - the first native Chinese Bishop of Shanghai - on the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, October 7, 1949, after the communists had already taken over China. Cardinal Kung was created a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in pectore (in the heart of the Pope, without announcement to anyone in the world including Cardinal Kung) 20 years ago in 1979 at the age of 78, when the Cardinal was serving a life sentence in isolation in China. Living in the heart of Pope John Paul II for 12 years, Cardinal Kung was finally proclaimed a cardinal to the world on June 28, 1991, by Pope John Paul II. At the time of Cardinal’s death, Cardinal Kung was the oldest Cardinal.

Bishop Kung had been Bishop of Shanghai and Apostolic Administrator of two other dioceses for only five years before he was arrested by the Chinese government. In just 5 short years, Bishop Kung became one of the most feared enemies of the Chinese Communists - a man who commanded both the attention and devotion of the country’s then three million Roman Catholics and the highest respect of his brother bishops in China, and inspired thousands to offer their lives up to God. In defiance of the communist created and sanctioned Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, Bishop Kung personally supervised the Legion of Mary, a religious organization of the laity dedicated to the veneration of the Blessed Mother Mary. As the result, many members of the Legion of Mary chose to risk arrest in the name of their God, of their Church and of their bishop. Hundreds of Legion of Mary members, including many students, were arrested and sentenced to 10, 15, or 20 years or more of hard labor.

In the midst of persecutions, Bishop Kung declared 1952 the Marian Year in Shanghai. During that year, there was to be uninterrupted 24 hours-daily recitation of the rosary in front of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima, which toured all the parishes of Shanghai. The Holy Statue finally arrived at Christ the King Church where a major arrest of the priests had just taken place only a month ago. Bishop Kung visited that church and personally led the rosary while hundreds of the armed police looked on. At the end of the rosary, leading the congregation, Bishop Kung prayed: “Holy Mother, we do not ask you for a miracle. We do not beg you to stop the persecutions. But we beg you to support us who are very weak.”

Knowing that he and his priests would soon be arrested, Bishop Kung trained hundreds of catechists to pass on the Roman Catholic faith in the diocese to future generations.

The heroic efforts of these catechists, their martyrdom and that of many faithful and clergy contributed to the vibrant underground Roman Catholic Church in China today. Bishop Kung’s place in the hearts of his parishioners was very well summed up by the Shanghai youth group in a 1953 New Year youth rally when they said: “Bishop Kung, in darkness, you light up our path. You guide us on our treacherous journey. You sustain our faith and the traditions of the Church. You are the foundation rock of our Church in Shanghai.”

On September 8, 1955, the press around the world reported in shock the overnight arrest of Bishop Kung along with more than 200 priests and Church leaders in Shanghai. Months after his arrest, he was taken out to a mob “struggle session” in the old Dog Racing stadium in Shanghai. Thousands were ordered to attend and to hear the Bishop’s public confession of his “crimes.” With his hands tied behind his back, wearing a Chinese pajama suit, the 5-foot tall bishop was pushed forward to the microphone to confess. To the shock of the security police, they heard a righteous loud cry of “Long live Christ the King, Long live the Pope” from the Bishop. The crowd responded immediately, “Long live Christ the King, Long live Bishop Kung”. Bishop Kung was quickly dragged away to the police car and disappeared from the world until he was brought to trial in 1960. Bishop Kung was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The night before he was brought to trial, the Chief Prosecutor asked once again for his cooperation to lead the independent church movement and to establish the Chinese Patriotic Association. His answer was: “I am a Roman Catholic Bishop. If I denounce the Holy Father, not only would I not be a Bishop, I would not even be a Catholic. You can cut off my head, but you can never take away my duties.”

Bishop Kung vanished behind bars for thirty years. During those thirty years, he spent many long periods in isolation. Numerous requests to visit Bishop Kung in prison by international religious and human rights organizations and senior foreign government officials were rejected. He was not permitted to receive visitors, including his relatives, letters, or money to buy essentials, which are rights of other prisoners.

The efforts for his release by his family, led by his nephew, Joseph Kung, by human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Red Cross, and the United States Government, never ceased. In 1985, he was released from jail to serve another term of 10 years of house arrest under the custody of those Patriotic Association bishops who betrayed him and betrayed the Pope and who usurped his diocese. In an article immediately after his release from jail, the New York Times said that the ambiguous wording of the Chinese news agency suggested that the authorities, not the bishop, might have relented. After two and one-half years of house arrest, he was officially released. However, his charge of being a counterrevolutionary was never exonerated. In 1988, his nephew, Joseph Kung, went to China twice and obtained permission to escort him to America for receiving proper medical care.

Shortly before Bishop Kung was released from jail, he was permitted to join a banquet organized by the Shanghai government to welcome His eminence Cardinal Jaime Sin, Archbishop of Manila, Philippines, on a friendship visit. This was the first time that Bishop Kung had met a visiting bishop from the universal Church since his imprisonment. Cardinal Sin and Bishop Kung were seated on opposite ends of the table separated by more than 20 Communists, and had no chance to exchange words privately. During the dinner, Cardinal Sin suggested that each person should sing a song to celebrate. When the time came for Bishop Kung to sing, in the presence of the Chinese government officials and the Patriotic Association bishops, he looked directly at Cardinal Sin and sang “Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam” (You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church), a song of faith proclaiming the supreme authority of the Pope. Bishop Kung conveyed to Cardinal Sin that in all his years of captivity he remained faithful to God, to his Church and to the Pope.

After the banquet, Aloysius Jin, the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association’s Bishop of Shanghai, rebuked Cardinal Kung, “What are you trying to do? Showing your position?” Cardinal Kung quietly answered, “It is not necessary to show my position. My position has never changed.”

Cardinal Sin immediately carried Cardinal Kung’s message to the Holy Father and announced to the world: this man of God never faltered in his love for his Church or his people despite unimaginable suffering, isolation and pain.

The late Bishop Walter Curtis, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut at that time, invited Bishop Kung to stay with the retired clergy of the Bridgeport Diocese upon his arrival in the United States. He remained a guest of the Diocese - later headed by Bishop Edward Egan - for 9 years until December 1997.

When Pope John Paul II presented Cardinal Kung with his red hat in the Consistory on June 29, 1991, in the Vatican, the 90 year old Bishop Kung raised himself up from the wheelchair, put aside his cane and walked up the steps to kneel at the foot of the Pontiff. Visibly touched, the Holy Father lifted him up, gave him his cardinal’s hat, then stood patiently as Cardinal Kung returned to his wheelchair to the sounds of an unprecedented seven-minute standing ovation from 9,000 guests in the Audience Hall in the Vatican.

During the past twelve years, Cardinal Kung offered public Masses in many parishes, in Catholic conferences and on TV, gave interviews and homilies in the United States to bring the attention of the free world to the continued persecutions on the Roman Catholic Church in China. He remained the inspiration of the 9-10 million underground Roman Catholics in China and the hated enemy of the Chinese Communist government.

In 1997, when China’s Chairman Jiang Zemin visited the United States, Cardinal Kung appealed to him to allow religious freedom in China and release Catholics held in China’s jail and labor camps. The appeal met only the deaf ear of the chairman.

Cardinal Kung never ceased inviting prayers for those who had separated and joined the communist established Patriotic Association. Prior to his trip to Rome to attend the Consistory in 1991, Bishop Kung addressed China through the airwaves of Voice of America, inviting the Patriotic bishops to return to the Eternal City with him.

In his Mission magazine in 1957, Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote: “The West has its Mindszenty, but the East has its Kung. God is glorified in His saints.”

His Eminence, Ignatius Cardinal Kung Pin-Mei died at 3:05 AM on March 12, 2000. He was 98 years of age.

Restore The Sacred

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

In the year 422 A.D. Pope St. Celestine enunciated an axiom in sacred theology. “Legem credendi statuit lex orandi.” From the Latin, translated literally it means “the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith.” In other words, “the way we pray, shows what we believe.”

It is because this axiom is so true that Holy Mother the Church takes great care in making sure the liturgy, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is carried out with the greatest care. Consequently, the priest is suppose to follow certain rubrics during the Mass, such as genuflecting at certain times, folding his hands, or hands outstretched, enunciating clearly the words of the Mass, especially the Holy Words of the consecration, etc. Why? The reason is to show that the Mass is not like going to McDonalds for a Big Mac, to show, to point out that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is something very special. The Mass transcends time and space because we are being made present to the Redeeming and Salvific act of Christ’s Redemption – the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Mass is the sacred Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Mass is the Sacrificial Banquet!

Unfortunately, over the past 30 years we have seen an excessive emphasis on the meal or banquet aspect of the Mass to the detriment of the sacrificial aspect. And so how many of us have witnessed liturgical aberrations in Masses we’ve attended where the priest might dress up as a clown so “the children can better relate to him and the Holy Meal” or the Halloween Masses where the priest is dressed up in a Halloween costume, or the Masses where Father is acting more like Jay Leno on the Tonight Show rather than acting in “persona Christi” at the altar? I could go on and on.

If people come to Mass and see their priest dressed as a clown, in a Halloween costume or telling constant jokes during the Mass, what are they to think about the Mass? There is consequently a lessening of the understanding of what the Mass is and so the faith of the people is weakened. Remember the axiom–lex orandi, lex credendi–how we pray, shows what we believe?

But there is an even more insidious effect on the faith of the people in the Eucharist stemming from the changes enacted by the American Bishops’ conference which tolerated illicit liturgical abuses such as communion-in-the-hand, female altar servers, and then proceeded to legislate them into law!

Recently the American Bishops issued a pastoral letter defining Catholic teaching concerning the Real and True Presence of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament, responding to ignorance and or unbelief in the Real Presence.

Over the past thirty years or so we have witnessed going from gold chalices to hold the Precious Blood of Christ to glasses and pottery cups; from the gold ciborium that holds the consecrated Hosts to bread baskets and dishes; from kneeling to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion–a gesture no one could mistake for anything but an act of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to standing to receive Holy Communion; from being fed the Holy Eucharist on one’s tongue–a definite and definitive action showing plainly that this is no ordinary food but the Bread of Angels, to receiving Holy Communion in one’s hands you would take food off a table or a snack of potato chips; from receiving Holy Communion from the hands of the priest ordained to feed and nourish his family, to being handed the Eucharist from “Joe the butcher” from down the street and from Sue my neighbor with whom I was just gossiping over the telephone yesterday; from the Blessed Sacrament being reserved on the altar in the center of our churches to the tabernacle being placed on a pedestal as if it were just another religious statue.

Why are the bishops surprised and shocked that so many American Catholics do not know and believe the teaching of Christ regarding the Most Blessed Sacrament? Why do the American bishops act so puzzled and alarmed that recent polls show over 50% of American Catholics are ignorant of or do not believe the Church’s teaching that the Eucharist is the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and not just a symbol of Jesus? When it is they who have presided over, authorized and promoted so many of these changes pertaining to the manner of reception of Holy Communion and the reservation of the Eucharist in our Catholic Churches.

What is so desperately needed today is not a pastoral letter, not a “verba” but “facta.” The old Latin axiom rings so true–“facta non verba.” “Deeds not words.”

Our people in the pews need to see the immediate restoration of all those sacred gestures and actions which say, “Yes, we believe the Holy Eucharist we receive is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” What we need today is to make the ORANDI correspond with the CREDENDI! We need to make what and how we pray around the Holy Eucharist correspond to what we believe about the Eucharist.

The American bishops need to reassemble the apparatus that for years has safeguarded the mysterious and clear truth of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The American bishops don’t need so much to publish a pastoral letter but they need to reaffirm by DEEDS the doctrine of the Real Presence, by reinstating all the gestures and actions which say by deeds, This is the Real and True Body and Blood of Christ I am receiving in Holy Communion.

· ”See, I kneel to receive my God!”

· ”See, I receive my Lord ON MY TONGUE for he is no ordinary food but God himself.”

· ”See, I look as I enter my parish church and I can find my Lord on the altar in the center in the tabernacle – he is the focus of my life. He is really Christ my Savior and Lord in the tabernacle.”

We’ve all heard the old - expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” There is really no substitute for the Eucharistic piety expressed by our bodies, infused into our souls, known with the power of our minds, when one’s whole being bows in adoration to the Most Blessed Sacrament.

So, we ask the question – what can be done to repair so much damage caused by the dismantling of traditional Eucharistic piety? The American bishops need to reevaluate all that they have legislated in the past 30 years.

· Instead of proposing that standing should be the recognized posture for receiving Holy Communion in the United States, the American bishops should be saying we need to reaffirm the Catholic teaching of the Real Presence–FACTA–Kneeling for Holy Communion will now be the norm.

· FACTA – abolishing the option of receiving Communion in the hand which has become in practicality the only option since we have a generation or two of children who were never even told there was any other option of receiving Holy Communion but in the hand.

· FACTA – The ordained Priest or deacons are the only ministers of Holy Communion unless in case of emergency.

All of the changes can be accomplished smoothly by a year long catechesis from the pulpit, Catholic newspapers and publications on the reasons necessitating these changes coupled with preaching from the pulpit what the true doctrine of the Church regarding the Eucharist is, thereby combining the FACTA with the Verba. You see the Pastoral Letter of the American bishops is the Verba, we eagerly await the FACTA.

You see, the Pastoral Letter of the American bishops is the Credendi, we eagerly await the ORANDI.

Bottom Line: We probably wouldn’t need a Pastoral Letter restating Catholic doctrine on the Real Presence if we were still kneeling for Holy Communion, receiving the Eucharist humbly on our tongues from the hands of the priest!

Reverend Anthony J. Manuppella

Pastor of St. Peter’s Church, Merchantville, New Jersey.

A Different View

The media continues to conjure the specter of Martial Law to cow us into absolute fear and terror. Many of us just do not see the evils that media and the editor of Pakabuhay (official newsletter of the Resurrection Of Our Lord Parish in BF Homes) see in the proclamation of the state of emergency. The President only exercised her power as the Armed Forces’ commander-in-chief in calling out security forces to quell reported threats to the government. She did declare any decree and therefore did not usurp Congress’ legislative power in a way Ferdinand Marcos did when he declared Martial Law in 1972.

The maverick bishops are suspected to have connived with groups plotting to overthrow the Arroyo administration. They said the Arroyo administration has lost its moral and legal authority to lead and urged the formation of a transition government in its stead. The bishops said that their group will make sure that the new government will adopt their announced economic agenda.

At the risk of being repetitious, the bishops are not experts on economic policy. They are not even experts on Catholic teaching, as the widespread heresy in their clerical ranks illustrates.

Nor do they appear paragons of virtues. When they are questioning GMA’s prudence and morality, it is reasonable to ask: What about theirs? Are they experts on assessing evil and removing it? The sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church suggest not.

Why can’t the bishops restrict themselves to the presentation of Catholic teaching and not squander their teaching authority on personal opinions on economic and political affairs? By taking a divisive stance on secular matters open to legitimate disagreement amongst Catholics, they are not even serving the cause of peace in their own church.

The Resurrection Parish in its Pakabuhay editorial has taken issue with BF Homes residents for tossing the blame to the local government for the rapidly deteriorating peace and order situation after the forcible opening of the village gates. Let me put it this way. When you see a storm coming, you close the windows. After the storm and you see the mess, you don’t say, “the storm did this.” You say, as Clint Eastwood might put it, Who left the windows opened?”

BF Homes residents have to protect themselves. The police can’t. They are nowhere to be found. Let me share with you a typical frustration of residents: “Hi… we had another break-in last night a few houses away from mine. Valuables and electronics were taken by the burglars. It took more than 30 minutes for the police to arrive. Kailangan pang sunduin. Grabe na talaga dito sa atin.”

Voluminous outsider traffic and on-street and on-sidewalk parking vehicles make for a daily dose of traffic jams, making going out and coming home difficult and hazardous. Adding to this misery is the plan of the mayor of requiring and charging motorists vehicular “stickers” to enter BF Homes Subdivision. Good grief! Since when can City Hall decree the requirement of vehicular “stickers” for residents to enter their own private subdivision? Unbelievable.

Parañaque Mayor Jun Bernabe forcibly opened the gates of the subdivision to a huge influx of outsider traffic that includes commuters, short-cutting motorists, commercial vehicles of all types, and let loose legions of squatters, carjackers, carnappers and even prowlers, thieves, rapists, and all sorts of criminals.

And why not, considering that even within BF Homes, residents and the parish church cannot seem to put their acts together on the subject of keeping the subdivision safe for their families whose welfare has been shoved aside in the interest of commerce as so loudly asserted by a persistent minority.

Fighting Back

Homeowners and residents of BF Homes Parañaque held last February 19, 2006, an indignation rally to draw the attention of Parañaque and Las Piñas city officials to the undeniable crime rate and lawlessness in their neighborhood since the forcible opening of the village’s gates.

Dubbed “Black Sunday”, the rally participants wore black to symbolize their concerns, as well as show their sympathy and solidarity with the family of Richard Capili, who was murdered when he resisted the carnap attempt of his family’s Toyota Revo within the BF Commercial area.

The rally was attended by leading personalities in BF Homes, including those from Northwest Homeowners’ Association, BF Kanluran, Sector 10, the BF Commercial Establishments Association, Phase VI-A Homeowners’ Association, and many others from the Las Piñas side, including the youthful friends and schoolmates of Capili.

The sympathy, anger and indignation of the homeowners over the circumstances leading and attendant to the killing of 19-year old Richard were clearly evident.

BF Homes residents expressed their frustration over the city government’s continued apathy to and disregard of their rights as homeowners. They blamed Parañaque City Mayor Jun Bernabe’s manifest indifference to the escalating incidents of crime and lawlessness in the sprawling village since this city’s forcible takeover of the gates. They cited many incidents of carnapping, robberies, break-ins, petty thefts, and vagrancies; car burglaries even in the PCJ Church premises, and the near-fatal pistol-whipping of the lady-employee who refused to open the safe of the beauty parlor.

Those who were present were unanimous in laying the blame on the mayor’s policies. His policies, as well as those of Las Piñas, resulted directly and indirectly creating the present climate of criminality and lawlessness in BF Homes.

What irritated the homeowners more deeply is the callous attitude shown by authorities towards the physical evidence of deterioration in the once prestigious subdivision. “City hall officials tend to downplay the rapid deterioration of conditions in BF Homes, instead of admitting the need for immediate reforms,” they pointed out.

Homeowners warned city officials that “BLACK SUNDAY was just the beginning.” With or without mass actions, homeowners and residents said, they will long remember the city officials’ indifference towards their self-respect, security, safety, peace and harmony.

“This will spread in secret and explode again until BF Homes is allowed to manage its own affairs. No amount of cosmetic changes will do. The Mayor cannot keep glossing over the fact that the rise in crime is directly tied to the city’s ill-advised city policies,’ they stressed.

They Just Don’t Get It

This email is going the rounds. It expresses the sentiments of many, if not the majority, of Filipinos. It deserves a reprint:

Dear Tita Cory, Senators, Congressmen, Businessmen, Media people, Leftists, Bishops, Priests and Nuns, and all Bleeding Hearts Out There:

I am angry. And I know that there are many out there who are angrier than I am for the same reason. And that reason is simple. I am sick and tired of all you guys claiming to speak for me and many Filipinos. I feel like screaming every time you mouth words about fighting for my freedom and my rights, when you obviously are just thinking about yours. You tell me that the essence of democracy is providing every citizen the right to speak his or her mind and make his or her own informed judgments, but you yourselves do not respect my silence and the choices I and many others have made. In other words, your concept of democracy is limited to having your rights and your freedoms respected, at the expense of ours.

I am utterly flabbergasted that you still do not get it: we already responded to your calls, and our response has been very clear - we chose not to heed your calls to go to EDSA or to Fort Bonifacio not because we do not love our country or our freedoms or our rights, but precisely because we love our country even more. Because quite frankly, we are prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward. You may think that is not correct, you can tell me all the dire warnings about the evils of authoritarian rule, but quite frankly all we see is your pathetic efforts to prop up your cause. You tell me that you are simply protecting my freedoms and my rights, but who told you to do that? I assure you that when I feel that my rights and my freedoms are at a peril, I will stand up and fight for them myself.

You tell us that GMA is not the right person to lead this country because she has done immoral acts. As someone who sees immorality being committed wantonly in many ways every day and by everyone (yes, including the ones you do), I may have become jaded. But you have not been able to offer me any viable alternative, while GMA has bent over backwards many times to accommodate you while continuing to work hard despite all the obstacles and the brickbats you have thrown her way. From where I sit, she is the one who has been working really hard to move this country forward while all of you have been so busy with one and only one thing: to make sure she does not succeed. So forgive me if I do not want to join you in your moral pissing contest. Forgive me if I have chosen to see things from another perspective. You say she is the problem. I say, we are the problem, more to the point, I think you are a bigger problem than she is. Taking her out may solve part of the problem, but that leaves us with a bigger problem: you. That is right, YOU!

While I felt outraged that she called a Comelec official during the elections and that she may have rigged the elections, I have since then taken the higher moral ground and forgiven her. Yes my dear bishops, I have done what you have told me to do since I was a child, which you say is the Christian and moral thing to do: forgive. Especially since she has asked for forgiveness and has tried to make amends for it. Erap certainly has not apologized and continues to be defiant, continuing to insult us everyday with his protestations. Cory has not apologized for her incompetence but we have forgiven her just the same because like GMA, she has worked hard after all.

I know you do not think that GMA's apology was not enough, or that she was insincere, or that that apology should not be the end of it, but please spare me the hypocrisy of telling me that you do so for the sake of protecting the moral fiber of society. The real reason is because you smell blood and wants to go for the kill.

Well, I have news for you. I do not like her too. I did not even vote for her. I voted for Raul Roco. But as much as I do not like her, I do not like you even more. I may not trust her, but guess what; I do not trust you even more.

You know why? Because all you do is whine and sabotage this country. You belittle every little progress we make; conveniently forgetting that it is not just GMA who has been working so hard to achieve them. Every single day, we keep the faith burning in our hearts that this country will finally pull itself out of the mess and we work so hard to do that. Every little progress is the result of our collective effort, we who toil hard everyday in our jobs. Yet, you persist in one and only thing: making GMA look bad in the eyes of the world and making sure that this country continues to suffer to prove your sorry point. In the process, you continue to destroy what we painstakingly try to build. So please do not be surprised that I do not share your cause. Do not be surprised that we have become contemptuous of your antics. You have moved heaven and earth to destroy her credibility, you have convened all kinds of fora and hearings and all you have done is test our patience to the core. For all your effort, you have only succeeded in dragging us further down. I say enough.

Don't get me wrong. I am not asking that we take immorality lying down, or that we let the President get away with anything illegal. But you have tried to prove your accusations all these time and you have not succeeded, so it is time to let things be. Besides, you are doing something immoral as well if not utterly unforgivable. The Magdalo soldiers are consorting with the communists - the same people who have been trying to kill democracy for years. Cory has been consorting with Erap and the Marcos’s.

So please wake up and take a reality check. In the absence of true and genuine moral leadership, many of us have decided to cast our lot with the President, even if we do not like her. A flawed leader is better than scheming power hungry fools who can not even stand up for their convictions in the face of an impending arrest.

Your coup attempts and the denials that you have consequently made only underscore what we think is true: you are spineless and unreliable people whose only defense is to cry suppression when your ruse do not work. You are like bullies who taunt and provoke, but cry oppression when taken to task for your cruelty.

I would have respected you if you took the consequences of your actions like real heroes: calmly and responsibly instead of kicking and screaming and making lame excuses. You say you are willing to die for us, that you do all these things for the country and the Filipino, but you are not even willing to go to jail for us.

Come on, you really think we believe that you did not want to bring down the government when that is the one and only thing you have been trying to do in the last many months?

We love this country and we want peace and progress. Many among us do not give a f*&k who sits at Malacañang because we will work hard and do our share to make things work. If you only do your jobs, the ones that we elected you to do, things would be a lot simpler and easier for every one.

The events during the weekend only proved one thing. You are more dangerous and a serious threat to this country than GMA is. We have seen what you are capable of doing - you are ready to burn this country and reduce everything to ashes just to prove your point. If there is something that we need protection from, it is protection from you.

Novus Ordo Mass: Observations & Comments

I agonized over my decision to write these observations and comments as I respect and admire our priests and ministers and the fine work they are doing serving our community. I take no delight whatsoever in pointing out the flaws in others when I myself have many flaws, perhaps even more serious. What our priests need now are more prayers, not more criticisms. However, I cannot remain silent in the face of this severe warning from Inæstimabile Donum:

“But these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world: the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing communion while the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends). In these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic liturgy: “One who offers worship to God on the Church’s behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification.”

Everywhere within the Catholic Church there is a pervasive culture of casualness that is reflected in what people choose to believe or not believe, what laws they will follow or not follow, what reverence they show and how they dress. Ostensibly, Catholics come to church in order to worship their King. Yet they often dress as if they’re about to go out and wash the car.

The Catholic position on this issue of what is appropriate to wear in Church is very simple: the church is the house of God and one must be dressed respectfully because God is present there. For ladies, no slacks, no low-cut, no sleeveless, but dress or skirts, veil, modest clothing. For gents, Sunday best, no shorts, no sneakers, etc.

Vestments For Celebrating Mass – Many priest celebrants do not wear the alb and the proper chasuble, which is a robe of color suitable to the liturgy of the day. The chasuble is supposed to be worn on top of the alb and stole. It’s usually green (for ordinary times), although it could be white, violet, red, rose or black depending on the occasion. According to the 1975 edition of the General Instructions of the Roman Missal (“GIRM”):

“The vestment common to ministers of every rank is the alb, tied at the waist with a cincture, unless it is made to fit without a cincture. An amice should be put on first if the alb does not completely cover the street clothing. A surplice may not be substituted for the alb when the chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when a stole is used instead of the chasuble or dalmatic.” [GIRM 298]

“Unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole, is the vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other rites immediately connected with Mass.” [GIRM 299]

Wearing the alb and stole only when celebrating Mass is permitted in limited circumstances, such as during concelebrations when there is a limited number of chasubles available, and when celebrated outside a church or oratory. (Congregation for Divine Worship (Prot. n. 480/73).

Nowhere does the GIRM allow the principal celebrant in any Mass held inside a church to vest only with an oversized stole over a “chasu-alb.” What happened to the alb and the cincture, the symbols of perfect integrity and purity? Without the alb, the priest’s street clothes and bare arms can clearly be seen. Isn’t the alb worn precisely for the purpose of hiding the priest’s ordinary wear? How can the laity be expected to dress appropriately for Mass when the ordained minister himself is dressed inappropriately? This casual mentality towards vesting diminishes the solemnity of the Mass. If people can afford to expend time to dress correctly to attend formal affairs hosted by mere mortals, surely, our Lord deserves no less.

Liturgical Norms – Rarely can the laity find two priests celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice the same way. Many priests often exhibit a remarkably libertine disposition toward the rubrics of the Mass, changing or omitting non-negotiable words, prayers and gestures.

Rev. Fr. Genaro O. Diwa, SLL, head of the Liturgical Commission, observes:

“Reading through your letter confirms my conviction about the need for our priests and lay faithful to understand the reform of the Roman Rite by Vatican II in its proper context. Many have invoked the reforms of Vatican II for their impatient and ill advised innovations in the Liturgy. I agree to all the points you have raised in your letter. These are also my great frustrations in the Archdiocese, when I see the Sacred Liturgy celebrated not in the way the Church teaches it to be celebrated but falls under the whims and caprices of each minister.

I have tried my best to instill in the mind and heart of our ordained and lay ministers that one can only truly introduce legitimate changes in the liturgy if one is rooted in the principles of the Roman Rites. I know that many introduce changes in the liturgy and these have caused more confusion and division in the Church.

The Liturgical Commission has issued many circulars and documents clarifying the issues you have presented, to guide our pastors, but the difficulty is how many of them would be willing to obey.”

Pope John Paul II has said that “the faithful have a right to a true liturgy, which means the liturgy desired and laid down by the Church.” [Inæstimabile Donum]. Because so many Catholics, especially lay Catholics, have been deprived of this right for so long, the faithful have come to accept liturgical abuses as the norm these days without knowing any better. This is not what the Council Fathers had in mind when they drafted the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Position of Celebrant – Some priests celebrate Mass at the altar from the Introductory to the Concluding Rites in utter disregard of liturgical norms. If liturgical forms are so inessential, why not dispense with them altogether? The priest could simply consecrate the bread and wine, pass them out, and send everyone home. Obviously, the Church has always attached great gravity to the rites, through which most Catholics have their most intimate contact with God on this earth. It is vital that the rites feel holy, and it is very hard for any novelty to seem holy.

Position of Tabernacle – We ditched the golden tabernacle to the side of the Sanctuary. Appropriately enough, the presider’s chair has been set up where the tabernacle used to be: the dead center of the Sanctuary. In effect, the message has been sent (though silently and subtly), “Man is enthroned here, God will have to do with a hallway closet.”

In the Code of Canon Law, Canons 1268 and 1269 order that the Blessed Sacrament be reserved in an immovable tabernacle, which, as a general rule, should be placed in the center of the high altar (in media parte altaris posito) except in cathedral or conventual churches, where it should be placed on a side altar.

Every tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament should be covered with a veil. This veil is the one essential indication of the Presence within the tabernacle, even more so than the lamp or lamps which burn before it.

Let’s put Jesus back where He belongs, lest we see our parish begin to slowly but certainly worship in the Cult of Man, rather than the Cult of God.

Posture of the priest during Mass – Other than those specific instances where the rubrics call for the priest to extend his arms to pray, where should the priest place his arms and hands during Mass? In our parish, I’ve seen priests fold their arms across their chests while the congregation sings the Gloria or Credo. Sometimes they keep their hands in their pockets, or if they’re already prematurely standing at the altar before the appointed time, they would have their hands on the altar holding a piece of paper as if they were reading something while waiting for the choir to finish singing. All of these gestures and postures contribute to the image of a disinterested priest and enforces the overall feeling of irreverence and lack of solemnity. The people see this form of non-verbal communication and behave in like manner. Do we still need to wonder why our Masses seem to lack reverence and solemnity?

In one church I observed that the celebrant, concelebrants and seminarians, without exception, fold their hands together at their chests in praying position when their hands are otherwise free unless otherwise directed by the rubrics. The people see this, and most of them follow the good example of the priests without being told or obliged to do so. You can say that the appearance of holiness exuding from the priests is infectious, and reverence and solemnity is the hallmark of all their celebrations. Why can’t we do the same in our parish?