January 19, 2009

WCR Letters to the Editor

Tradition calls for us to stand for Eucharistic Prayer

Jaroslav Pelikan said it best: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” I speak here in reference to kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer (“Eucharist kneeling request sparks controversy,” WCR, Dec. 15).

The first ecumenical council, Nicaea I (ad325), forbade kneeling on the Lord’s Day. The Quinisext Council (ad692) decreed that kneeling on the Lord’s Day was to display a gesture that was contrary to the joy belonging to Christians as an “Easter people.”

We also have the witness of the fathers (especially Tertullian, St. Hilary of Poitiers and St. Basil the Great) attesting to the custom of joyfully standing in prayer on the Lord’s Day.

The Eucharist is preeminently an Easter sacrament. Though it is a commemoration of the Lord’s passion, the Eucharist makes mystically present the Risen Christ “who dies no more” (Romans 6:9).

Why should an Easter people harbour a latent Jansenism while thanking God “for having counted us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you” (Eucharistic Prayer II)?

In what sense is kneeling on Sundays, and more precisely at the Eucharist, called “traditional” if the custom is absent from the testimony of the fathers and ecumenical councils?

In conformity with the Second Vatican Council’s spirit of ressourcement, liturgical discipline ought to be more attentive to the patrimony of the fathers in view of recovering our identity as an “Easter people.”

Faith in the paschal mystery stands at the centre of our Catholic identity. Should not our celebration of the “source and summit” of Christian life reflect this?

Matthew Hysell
Edmonton

Scholar should show interest in the truth

Re: “Scholar sees no threat in religion program” (WCR Dec. 15).

Michel Despland, a Concordia University religion professor in Montreal, states, “Allegations that the new ethics and religious culture (ERC) program in Quebec schools will influence children to reject or abandon the religion in which they are raised are unfounded.”

Then, he contradicts himself by saying, “The creation of public education was a move to release youth from the control of parents. . . . The movement to emancipate youth from parental control has taken centuries.”

He then goes further by saying, “There is still a force in Christianity that says Christians must remain ignorant of other religions.”

Only Christ was given authority from God the Father on high to found his Church. Christ then founded only one Church, which blossomed from Judaism (which was only meant to last until the Messiah came).

There was to be only one shepherd, Jesus Christ, and one flock. The teachings of his Church were to be taught to the four corners of the earth.

This should give reason to pause and think.

What value is there in teaching about obsolete religions and calling the parents, who teach the truth of Christianity, ignorant?

Do we want to remain in a sea of conflicting religions or do we want to know truth?

Helen Ferguson
St. Albert

System penalizes Quebec federalist parties

You are quite right that the majority of members of Parliament elected from Quebec for more than 15 years have been committed to the breakup of the country, and the Bloc MPs are not part of the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition (“Canadian coalitions needed to preserve national unity,” WCR editorial, Dec. 15).

It’s important, though, to remember that the majority of Quebec voters did not vote for the Bloc. In the recent federal election they got only 38 per cent of the votes in Quebec. Even in 1993 when they formed the official opposition they got only 49 per cent.

Why do we keep using a voting system that gives a bonus to parties with regional concentrations of votes, penalizes those which do not and exaggerates the centrifugal forces in our country?

The penalty to all federalist parties in Quebec is matched by the penalty to the quarter million Conservative voters in Toronto who elected no one, and the quarter million Alberta voters who voted Green or Liberal and elected no one.

A majority government, whether a one-party or a coalition, should reflect the votes and values of the majority. Can we call ourselves a democracy, when we fall so short of this goal?

Wilfred Day
Port Hope, Ont.

Catholic Church does much for the needy

In response to Albert Fernando’s letter (“Church must attend to children already born,” WCR Dec. 15):

He claims the Catholic Church is beating drums with battle cries against abortion and ignores children who are already born.

In fact, there are 17 organizations, many of them Catholic, listed in the phone book who keep food banks functioning, adopt Third World orphans, and feed and clothe the needy.

Catholic Social Services makes every effort to aid stressed teens, regardless of Church denomination.

My question to Fernando is, Just what are you doing to aid the cause, other than erroneously denigrating the Catholic Church?

Rose Ruth
Edmonton

Tories should allow debate on abortion

I no longer wish to be a member of the Conservative Party nor submit any donations to the party because it refuses to allow a debate on abortion in Canada.

Is not the government for all the people? Where do we go to help save the lives of these thousands upon thousands of babies being aborted, literally slaughtered, as though they were cattle and not children of God?

I cannot believe that someone can ignore the right to life of any one child, let alone stopping those who wish to fight on that child’s behalf.

Why are we as a nation allowing this to happen? Have the majority of Canadians and our politicians gone so far from God that they can decide these things themselves?

I challenge Mr. Harper or anyone he chooses to debate this with me, even privately if he and the Conservatives are afraid of another public debate.

I am sick of seeing and hearing of Christians in government parties voting and promoting an action that is totally against the faith and religion they say they believe in.

When is it God’s turn to have his rights?

Floyd Fankhanel
Edmonton

Agency aiding India has changed address

Ramon Gonzalez did an outstanding job of reducing the massive amount of material that Ram Mehta and I gave him about SEARIC to its core essentials (“Local charity helps the poor in India,” WCR Dec. 8). He has acquired a skill that far too many reporters never achieve.

The article has only one error that certainly was not Ramon’s fault but which unfortunately negates any tangible benefit to our charity.

It seems that Canada Post had decided to centralize the small post office in Petrolia and we moved our post office box to Southgate. Any mail sent to our old address will not be forwarded automatically to our new address.

Our new address is SEARIC, PO Box 76011, Southgate Post Office, Edmonton T6H 5Y7. Our phone number is 434-0632.

Leif Stolee
Edmonton

Letters to the Editor

The WCR welcomes your letters. Please write 300 words or less and tell us your name, address and daytime phone number. All letters are subject to editing.

Opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not necessarily represent the views of the WCR.

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 -- Western Catholic Reporter