St. Patrick’s, in the old mill town of Norwich in Eastern Connecticut, was completed in 1879. It was “the finest parish church in New England” – at least until Immaculate Conception church in Waterbury was built in the 1920’s. 1) At the time both cities were part of the Hartford diocese. In 1953 St. Patrick’s became the cathedral of the new diocese of Norwich. The city of Norwich subsequently has shared in the drastic decline of manufacturing in Connecticut. And in June 2021 the diocese entered chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, overwhelmed by sexual abuse claims, many relating to the diocese-affiliated Mount Saint John Academy between 1990 and 2002. 2)

St Patrick’s offers to the visitor an austere stone exterior. The sucession of spires and gables on the facade is, however, fascinating. James Murphy of Providence, the architect, was responsible for many churches throughout New England. He had been the apprentice and then the partner of Patrick Keely, an even more prolific builder of Catholic churches – and married Keely’s sister-in-law! 3)

The interior produces an entirely contrasting impression: a riot of color! Warm tones of red/violet, green/blue and yellow dominate along with the wood of the pews. This appearance is due to a restoration, completed in 2013, which, based on an analysis of the original paint, recreated the Victorian-era color scheme. In addition, new murals were painted throughout the church. The contractor was John Canning & Co. 4) Their work is familar to those in Fairfield county, CT, who have visited the Basilica of St John, Stamford or St. Mary’s, Norwalk. Shawn Tribe has written a detailed description of the restoration.5) As can be seen in a photograph included in Tribe’s article, St Patrick’s, like so many other Victorian churches, had previously suffered from unimaginative, monochromatic painting.

After the magnificent nave, the sanctuary or chancel is somewhat of a disappointment. Judging from photographs, prior renovations from the 1950’s onward have here been especially invasive. The restorers tried to reemphasize the sanctuary by creating an odd, pseudo-stained glass painting on the flat back wall. Althought by no means as extreme, St. Patrick’s resembles in this regard the church of St. Francis Xavier in New York City: a splendid restoration of the nave and transepts leads to a sanctuary – after all, the focal point of a Catholic church – which reflects, partially or totally, other aesthetic and liturgical principles.

(Above) The Cathedral before restoration. (Below) St. Patrick’s church (before it acquired cathedral status) in an earlier photograph. Both from The Liturgical Arts Journal. 6)

A number of magnificent stained glass windows adorn St. Patrick’s, likely contemporary with the church’s construction. Their style closely resembles that of the early windows in St. Patrick’s, New York City. In both cases, a powerful, splendid effect is achieved, even if the craftsmen cannot be said to have exactly recaptured the true spirit of medieval glass. That would take many more decades of artistic effort!

I am glad for such such a splended restoration, which reinforces the status of this church as the true center of its diocese. It demonstrates what careful attention to the interaction of the architecture and the original decorative scheme can achieve. I only regret that, in New York City, churches of even greater artistic, historical and architectural significance – such as St. Thomas, All Saints or St. Stephen’s – are closed, sold off and desecrated.

1. Millionaires’ Triangle
2. “Diocese of Norwich expects to have proposed bankruptcy plan by April 1,” TheDay 12/15/2021
3. James Murphy(architect), Wikipedia
4. John Canning & Co – the Cathedral of St. Patrick.
5. Tribe, Shawn, “Before and After: St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Norwich CT,” The Liturgical Arts Journal, 9/2/2020.
6. Ibid.

From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War: Catholics respond to the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes on the Latin Mass

Peter A. Kwasniewski, Editor.

Angelico Press, Brooklyn, 2021

Since July 16, 2021, a cultural war has exploded in the Church. On that day Pope Francis declared his intent to eliminate the Catholic Tradionalist movement.  This was the latest step, moreover, in an assault on the principles of Catholic identity in liturgy, morality and ecclesiastical organization that has been proceeding for eight years now under this pontificate. One immediate consequence of this unprecedented papal action was an outpouring of critical commentary.  Except for sources controlled by the Vatican or directly or indirectly in the pay of the Roman Catholic Church, the authors were largely sympathetic or  favorable to the traditionalists – or at least unconvinced by Pope Francis’s assertions. 

Peter Kwasniewski, perhaps the most tireless literary advocate of traditionalism today, has gathered up and published in From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War a selection of these first responses. This book includes 69 contributions and concludes with a “public statement”  – an international open letter in support of the Traditional Mass. 

The contributors represent a broad spectrum of opinion. The dedicated  traditionalists are to be found, of course: Fr. Claude Barthe, Martin Mosebach, Dom Alcuin Reid – Peter Kwasniewski himself contributes a preface and five articles. But there are also “conservatives,” cultural pundits and those who previously viewed themselves as occupying a position in the middle of the road, liturgically speaking. Fr. Hunwicke is a member of the Ordinariate. And there are writers who are not Catholic at all. Dr. Kwasniewski subtitles this collection Catholics respond to the Motu Proprio  but I doubt that anyone would consider Michel Onfray a Catholic (as he himself points out in the first sentence of the essay reproduced in this volume). But the presence of such a thinker is of the greatest significance: Traditionis Custodes is a direct challenge not just to a parochial religious rite but to human culture in general.  

These essays were first published not just on the internet but also on major mainstream media throughout the world: Le Figaro (France), The New York Times, ABC (Spain). Among the contributors are noted authors and intellectuals.  I also note with pleasure the presence among the contributors of priests, bishops and cardinals: e.g., Cardinals Sarah, Müller, Burke, Brandmüller and Zen. I regret to say, however,  that subsequently certain of these clerical authors either complained about their presentation in this volume (Cardinal Sarah)  or relativized their views (Cardinal Brandmüller). This demonstrates the grip that ultramontane discipline still holds on the (conservative) Catholic clergy and the continuing inability of most of the Catholic leadership to accept open discussion or diversity of views. (Conspicuously absent from this volume – except for one anonymous priest from an anonymous institute – are contributions from the “Ecclesia Dei” institutes.).

The essays of this volume address Traditionis Custodes from many different angles. Some discuss its legality and focus on specific language.  Others take a more principled, philosophical approach, trying to discern what, in substance,  is going on. Ross Douthat seeks broad historical parallels. But this collection is not at all a mere critique of, and response to,  Traditionis Custodes.  Rather,  it is a summary of the arguments for traditionalism, a kind of miniature encyclopedia of what traditionalist Catholic and their supporters actually believe. 1) Pope Francis might have been hoping  to elevate Vatican II and the new mass rite beyond all rational analysis and inquiry but, as many the essays of this book show,  he is having exactly the opposite effect. 

The same is true for this book’s recurring theme of the relation of papal infallibility and papal governance  to Catholic tradition. For with Traditionis Custodes – as with Amoris Laetitia – Francis has radically put in issue the scope of his own authority. Regardless of Francis’s purported revocation of Summorum Pontificum, the pope’s authority to abolish the Traditional rite has been squarely raised (and denied  (Mosebach)).

Many of these early reactions have a refreshing,  fiery immediacy. In the face of papal legislative aggression, couched in language even more hostile and extreme, it’s no time to hold back. At decisive points in history one has to show one’s colors. As the old song goes:

Praise the Lord and swing into position,

Can’t afford to be a politician,

Praise the Lord, we’re all between perdition and the deep blue sea. 2)

The need of the day to formulate and express deep convictions clearly and directly, combined with the participation of several renowned authors, raises the level of this book far above that of the usual Catholic prose. One can discover throughout pages of great power and conviction – at times this book makes for great reading! 

At this moment we should be rallying all forces in defense of tradition, regardless of our prior differences. I nevertheless feel compelled to comment critically on aspects of certain contributions which, I think, reflect attitudes which I would have hoped to have disappeared after the impact of Traditionis Custodes. For example, here and there are traces of Roman Catholic servility  –  certain contributors feel obliged to balance their criticisms with praise for the pope’s other initiatives or to express understanding for the provocations he has allegedly endured from Traditionalists. One piece, by Christophe Geffroy and Fr. Christian Gouyaud, even spends paragraphs ranking and attacking traditionalists! (Another essay, Traditionis Custodes:  Divide and  Conquer? by Jean-Pierre Maugendre directly responds to this article’s assertions). Another contributor, like pre–1917 Russian peasants,  writes of Francis being misled by his advisors. Indeed, contrary to the more forthright views I previously described,  the hope is expressed by some that somehow the furor around Traditionis Custodes will die down, that some kind of equilibrium will reassert itself. 

This latter interpretation (or rather wishful thinking) has been put to an early test. The preface to this volume is dated October 7, 2021. Since then we have seen the instruction of the Vicariate of Rome (signed October 7, 2021!), the “Responses to the Dubia” of Archbishop Roche and the implementation decree of the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Cupich. All of these documents emanate from close allies of Pope Francis and are obviously coordinated with him and with each other. These measures confirm that, as far as Francis is concerned, there will be no truce or slacking off but only a fanatical fight to the death with Catholic traditionalism. 

Yet, on the other hand,  since October 7 the flood of essays, articles and posts defending the Latin Mass has also not let up.  It seems Traditionis Custodes has triggered a long dormant urge for traditionalists to proclaim their beliefs to the world. This literature, taken together, is a grand “apology” – in the original sense of the word, an explanation and defense – of the traditional Catholic faith. I would hope Peter Kwasniewski will set to work soon on From Benedict’s Peace – Volume II!

1. I look forward to a publication of an anthology of these contributions, each of which illuminates the issue from a different perspective and the whole representing a veritable encyclopedia of Traditionalist belief.  It will be an invaluable reference for Catholic Traditionalists – or for the curious outsider who wants to discover what motivates these people. (“Traditionis Custodes: Dispatches from the Front” The Society of St Hugh of Cluny, 8/18/2021)
2. Frank Loesser, “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition” (1942, referring to the attack on Pearl Harbor)

Sermon for the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus 2022

by Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla

Some years ago a novel was published to great acclaim despite the difficulty of its thought and despite its taking place in a medieval monastery.  The novel is The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.  Its most famous line is the last line in the novel: Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus. The translation of this line is somewhat difficult, but it means something like this:  “Yesterday’s rose stands only in name, we hold only empty names”.  What this means is that there is no real connection between the name, the word we use, and what we are trying to refer to by that name.  Names are in the end empty words. This is a  terrible and false understanding of reality itself, and, tragically, is an understanding of reality that is all too common in our culture. 

When we think of proper names, names of people, we associate that name with specific people we know.  And we do not think in terms of that particular name having any significance beyond the particular person who bears that name.  My parents debated what to name me at my birth.  My father wanted to name me Gennaro in homage to my grandfather, Gennaro.  My mother strongly resisted this on the grounds that I should have a “normal” American name so that I would fit in more with the American culture.  My mother won that battle, and I was named Richard.  There was no particular reason why she chose Richard. She just liked it.

Today’s feast of the Holy Name of Jesus has nothing to do with naming as an aesthetic or family choice.  The name of the Child born in a stable in Bethlehem was named by God through a message of an angel to the Child’s mother nine months before his birth.  Mary’s Fiat at the Annunciation embraced not only her willingness to do the Will of God in this most amazing and perplexing way.  Her Fiat also embraced who this Child would be. The name of the Child and his very being were bound together in the reality of the Child’s very being—who He was and was to be as a child born into this world.

The name, “Jesus”, is the English equivalent of the Latin “Jesu”, which came from the Greek “Iēsous” a transliteration of the Hebrew “Yeshua”, an ancient Jewish name which means “Yahweh saves” or “is salvation”.  We see in this the significance of the bestowal of the name Jesus on the Child born in Bethlehem. His name and who He is are inseparable. St. Paul writes in his Epistle to the Philippians: “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”  And ever since then the very name of Jesus has been understood and practiced as a form of prayer, so that the very sounding of his Holy Name invokes not only the power of God but most importantly the love of God for each of us and for all of mankind.  So many saints have understood the power of the Holy Name of Jesus. Those that immediately come to mind are St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bernadine of Siena, and St. Ignatius of Loyola.  

We are still in Christmastide.  Let us use this time to deepen our understanding of that Person who lies at the heart of our faith whose name is Jesus.  In a few days we will celebrate the great feast of the Epiphany.  The three Magi did not know the Child’s name whom they had traveled so long to see. But they knew who He was by the light of a star, and they knew that they were in the presence of the source of that Light, and in faith they prostrated themselves before the Child, because they knew by a miracle of faith that He came as the Savior of the world: He who saves—Jesus.

I close with an English translation of St Bernard of Clairvaux’s hymn, Jesu dulcis memoria, a most fitting meditation for the beginning of the year of our Lord Jesus, 2022.

Jesu, the very thought of Thee

With sweetness fills the breast;

But sweeter far Thy face to see,

And in Thy presence rest.

Nor voice can sing, nor heart can frame,

Nor can the mem’ry find

A sweeter sound than Thy blest name.

O Savior of mankind!

O hope of every contrite heart,

O joy of all the meek,

To those who fall how kind Thou art!

How good to those who seek.

All those who find Thee find a bliss

Nor tongue nor pen can show;

The love of Jesus, what it is,

None but His loved ones know.

Jesus, our only joy be Thou,

As Thou our prize will be:

Jesus, be Thou our glory now,

And through eternity.

Father Richard Gennaro Cipolla, Ph.D., D.Phil.(Oxon)

St. Mary’s Church, Nowalk, held its annual festive Christmas Coffee Hour after the 10 am traditional Mass today, including Christmas caroling.

“Please join us tomorrow, January 2nd, at 5:30 P.M. for our inaugural installment of ORGAN AT THE ORATORY.  On the first Sunday of each month, a guest organist will offer a recital prior to Vespers.  The first recitalist will be David Hughes, Organist & Choirmaster at St. Patrick’s Oratory.  He will play a program of festive Christmas music by the great Johann Sebastian Bach; Bach’s mentor Dietrich Buxtehude, who was for many years the organist in Lübeck; and some colorful versets by the notable French classical composer Nicolas de Grigny.  Vespers will be followed immediately at 6:00 P.M. by sung Vespers & Benediction for the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Jesus.  The recital and Vespers are of course free and open to the public.  Please invite your family and friends; this is a wonderful way to introduce them to the Church’s rich liturgical and musical patrimony, which we are so grateful has a home at St. Patrick’s.”

During the papacy of Pius IX the theory and, to a great extent, the practice of the modern ultramontane regime were perfected.  This system did secure internal unity and stability, leading the Church through one of the most pivotal periods of world and European history. Yet the lead-up to the Second Vatican Council,  the course of the Council itself and the implementation of its decisions revealed all too clearly the deficiencies of ultramontanism. The extreme centralized structures and absence of any real exchange of ideas in the Roman Catholic Church privileged the influence of “experts,” cliques and behind-the-scenes intrigue. At the pope’s command, the bishops, clergy and laity, unable to think for themselves, accepted blindly the destruction or relativization of that which they had only yesterday held sacred and immutable. 

But the “Conciliar Church” itself bore the hallmarks of the ultramontane past that it affected to despise –  provincialism, authoritarianism,  pervasive bureaucracy and remoteness from the life of men and women today.  The hundreds of pages of Conciliar decrees and the literary productions  of the Conciliar champions (Rahner, Ratzinger, Kung, Schillebeeckx, etc.) made, outside of the clerical bureaucracy,  little impression in the Church –-  and none on the world outside it. Indeed, far from being an avenue for establishing new communication with the world and the laity,  Vatican II – its interpretation and defense – became just one more burden on the Church establishment. 

Within the Church itself, however, all the institutions so carefully built up since the 1830’s – the schools, seminaries, monasteries, religious congregations, hospitals, universities –  experienced a more or less universal existential crisis. Entire national churches (e.g., the Netherlands, Quebec)  collapsed virtually overnight, while most others in the developed world commenced a continuous decline of religious practice.  Conflict within the ecclesiastical establishment itself broke into the open, as the Vatican and the Church’s dominant intellectual leadership fell out on a broad spectrum of issues. 

It became increasingly apparent that the positions of the progressives were irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine and morality, at least as previously understood.  The post-Conciliar popes up to Francis, however, could not face the consequences of either adopting the progressive agenda or condemning it.  The result was a deadlock between the progressive institutions and the Vatican which lasted for the next 45 years.  In the actual practice of  ruling the Church the ultramontane papacy more and more assumed a merely administrative role. 1)

In the midst of the post-Conciliar conflicts over the faith,  Catholic traditionalism was born. The new Conciliar model was manifestly not working;  a return to – or preservation of  – the past recommended itself. Contrary to what Pope Francis asserts, the attitudes of the traditionalists to the authority of the Council varied greatly – as did their understanding regarding ultramontanism. Clearly the establishment of the FSSPX and their consecration of bishops in 1988 were utterly contrary to the ultramontane system. By placing Catholic doctrine and tradition above obedience to authority, Archbishop Lefebvre in effect challenged ultramontanism’s foundational assumptions. I am not sure, however, that the FSSPX (and later the FSSP) fully grasped what was happening. I get the sense they adhered to a paradigm that all was perfect in the Church prior to Vatican II  – that the Church’s afflictions were attributable to infiltrators and dissenters. And,  after achieving reconciliation with the Vatican, the FSSP certainly labored to project an image of alignment with an authoritarian and infallible papacy. 

To the traditionalists could be added the “conservatives”  – which the progressive establishment hardly distinguishes from the traditionalists. From the late 1960’s onward they espoused a radical ultramontanism, understanding the progressives primarily as “dissenters” from authority. For the conservatives, just like their 19^th century predecessors, the papacy is a defender of Christian morality in the secular world, and the omnipotent guardian of doctrinal purity within the church.  This was often juxtaposed to the feebleness of the national hierarchies, which the conservatives usually viewed as ineffectual bureaucrats. Yet in fact,  the papacy itself, not just the bishops of the local churches, was usually reluctant to be directly drawn into conflict with either the liberal forces in the Church or the governing powers of the Western secular world.

Pope Francis has attempted to revive progressive Conciliarism and make it final and irreversible. To do this,  he has made the most extreme assertions of ultramontane authority in history. So far, his most salient “achievements” de jure in ruling the Church have been the attempted institutionalization of divorce within Catholicism and the launching of a campaign of repression of Catholic traditionalism. He has also adopted or tolerated the policy positions of the ruling secular powers on a broad range of issues – totally in harmony with the Catholic liberals.  His actions are very often accompanied by intemperate language denouncing perceived adversaries – similar to the rhetorical style of many progressives. 2)

Yet,  after 8 years,  the pope’s actions still fall short of the demands of his progressive allies.  Further papal initiatives – to introduce married and female clergy,  to regularize homosexuality, to explore a “synodal” system of  governance – have stalled. The hierarchs of the Catholic church remain, in general,  extremely unwilling to criticize publicly Pope Francis.  We do not fully know what is going on behind the scenes. Whatever its source, however, internal Church resistance has obviously slowed the progressive onslaught. Once again, in the eyes of the progressives,  the stagnation of the post-Humanae Vitae Church has returned.  In places like Germany they therefore feel empowered to take matters into their own hands – with, so far, a feeble public reaction from the Vatican. 

We must remember, after all, that the Catholic Church rests on the voluntary adherence of the faithful throughout the world. National and family support for remaining Catholic continues to erode – even in Poland.  In most places the Church also lacks the resources to offer the valuable patronage of an establishment (like that of the Church of England). In the aftermath of the Council the majority of the Catholic laity in the developed world have ceased to practice their faith. In some places many have gone further and declared their public exit from the Church (Germany) or become evangelical protestants  (throughout Latin America and to some extent in the United States). Even the remaining  practicing Catholics often have little understanding of Catholic doctrine; their adherence to the rules of the Faith regarding sexual morality is also limited. 

Thus, just as after the French Revolution, the fundamental challenge to the Church –  evangelizing the modern world  – still remains outstanding,  Now, however, the majority of the Catholic clergy and faithful stand in need of evangelization as well!  Ultimately this is a spiritual problem – a crisis of faith. A spiritual challenge can only by addressed by spiritual answers. Such a need cannot be met by a return to ultramontane centralization, strong-arm tactics and publicity tricks. Let us think also of our duty of evangelization to non-Catholics and non-Christians. For those outside the Church, ultramontanism is like ”preaching to the choir”  – absolutely incomprehensible. Endlessly reiterating Conciliar and progressive platitudes of the 1960’s and 70’s, that themselves are derived from prior secular ideologies, will have just as little success.  These policies have been imposed for decades in one way or another and have failed. 

In my opinion traditionalism is this answer, the real path of reform, the way out of the ultramontane/progressive dead end. That is because it rests not on the authority of the clergy or the support of the secular world, but on the individual commitment of the laity – not to some self-constructed world-view or to an image of the Church as it appeared in any one era, but to the fullness of Catholic tradition as it exists in every age. The traditionalists of the last twenty years or so  – laity, priests and families –  have become such because they experienced and then voluntarily lived the traditional mass. Thus, Catholic traditionalism fully respects the freedom of conscience of the individual believer and even presupposes it. It is not a sect, a cult, a “group” (Pope Francis) or an ideology but is a way of life and of faith that is freely available to all. Yet its practice so often works a total transformation of those who fully undertake to live according to its precepts. The traditional Catholic faith is thus the spiritual answer that believers and non-believers are secretly awaiting in this age of unbelief. It is now up to this who have lived it to make it available to the whole world. 

1. The situation of the Church under John Paul II and Benedict thus recalled that of Austria-Hungary in the years 1866 to 1918. It was a monarchy that had progressively lost its prior spiritual or ideological raisons d’etre ( such as ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, the advocate of Catholicism in Central Europe, the leader of an embryonic German national state).  What remained to the central authority were the cult of the house of Habsburg-Lorraine (Emperor Franz Josef) and ongoing administrative responsibilities.  Meanwhile, ideologies that called into question the very existence of the Austro-Hungarian state (e.g., liberalism, socialism, Hungarian, Czech, Polish and even German nationalism as well as religious unbelief in general) proliferated – unchallenged and unrefuted.
2. Now in the many volumes of Pastor’s History of the Popes one certainly finds, particularly in the period between 1294 and 1559, papal utterances and deeds that are violent, extreme or even insane. These, however, occur most often in the context of papal secular political ambitions and the audience was political rivals, officials and ambassadors. Papal words were not broadcast all over the world – let alone published at the parish level. Nor were the popes of those years holding themselves out as spiritual leaders of the laity.

The following churches will celebrate the traditional Mass for the Feast of the Epiphany on Thursday, January 6. Please inform us of Masses that are not on our schedule.

Connecticut

St. Mary Church, Norwalk, Low Mass 8 am; Solemn Mass 7 pm (Solemn Mass with the Proclamation of the Moveable Feasts of the Year, and Blessing of Chalk)

St. Pius X, Fairfield, Missa Cantata 5 pm

St. Emery Church, Fairfield, Solemn Mass 6 pm followed by blessing and distribution of chalk. (Wed. Jan 5 at 6 pm: Missa Cantata followed by blessing of Epiphny Water)

Sts. Cyril and Methodius Oratory, Bridgeport, Low Mass 7:45 am; Missa Cantata 6 pm followed by blessing of the chalk.

St. Patrick Oratory, Waterbury, Low Mass 8 am, High Mass 6 pm (Wed. Jan. 5 at 6 pm solemn blessing of the Epiphany Water)

St. Martha Church, Enfield, 7 pm (Wed. Jan 5 at 7 pm, blessing of the Epiphany Water)

New York

Church of the Holy Innocents, New York, Missa Cantata 6 pm (Wed. Jan. 5: Blessing of Epiphany Water follows the 6 pm Mass)

St. Vincent Ferrer, New York, Solemn Mass in the Dominican Rite, 7 pm

Church and Shrine of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, New York, NY, Solemn Mass 7 pm, distribution of Epiphany chalk following Mass.

Most Holy Redeemer, New York, Solemn Mass 7 pm, including blessing and distribution of chalk (Wed. Jan 5, blessing of Epiphany Water 6 pm)

St. Josaphat, Bayside, Queens, 7 pm

St. Paul the Apostle, Yonkers, 12 noon.

Annunciation Church, Crestwood, Missa Cantata 7 pm (On Wednesday Jan. 5 at 7 pm there will be the blessing of Epiphany water, chalk and incense)

Immaculate Conception, Sleepy Hollow, 7 pm

St. Rocco, Glen Cove, Long Island, Missa Cantata 7 pm

New Jersey

Our Lady of Sorrows, Jersey City, 5 pm

Shrine Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, Raritan, Missa Cantata, 7 pm

St. Catherine Laboure, Middletown, 12 noon.

St. John the Baptist Church, Allentown, Solemn Mass 7:00p.m., blessing of chalk and Epiphany Water