Fr. Jeffery Fasching Finds Renewal In The Traditional Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicknight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your father did us all a great service.

One of my uncles lost a leg to a Nazi UBoat. Another flew bombing raids over Germany which traumatized him so much he could never speak about it. A good friend of mine is in Afganistan right now. Another suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and can’t live a normal life.

The wars of the twentieth century very well could have influenced the desire for change in our Church. Although understandable the results have nonetheless been damaging. The younger generations don’t carry the guilt nor narcissism the Age of Aquarius still clings to.
 
Ockham said:
It wasn’t entirely the Baby Boomer generation that gave us the Novus Ordo and misinterpreted 'spirit of Vatican II" but it will be their legacy.
Click to expand...
Right. It was the Church that gave us the “Novus Ordo” (as you call it), the same Church that gave us the teaching of Vatican II and all other ecumenical councils.
 
diggerdomer said:
Right. It was the Church that gave us the “Novus Ordo” (as you call it), the same Church that gave us the teaching of Vatican II and all other ecumenical councils.
Click to expand...
Right on cue…

Actually, it was a curious man named Bugnini that wrote the Novus Ordo. If you read the preparatory and final documents of Vatican II you’ll see that the changes made were never called for by the Church. If you read the Bible you’ll see this isn’t the first time we’ve acted like disobedient children.
 
Layman said:
Catholics now don’t get anything like the Baltimore Cathecism in terms of religious educationi know i did’nt:(. I wonder how many have actually sat down to read the New Testamentnot the whole things bits and pieces or own a missalgot my 1962 latin missal last week:D, still. They happily go to Communion without going to Confessioni dont go all the time but i have been trying to go at least once a month. The old devotions are largely gone, I understand. I’ve read the Novus Ordo Massi like the tridintine meself, if not said soley by the priest as in the old rite, could be done in 10 minutesi have seen it done in less than 30.

Saw priests hearing confessions face-to-face of young pre-confirmation(?) boys in the sanctuary of a church nearby recently. With an empty confessional or two, nearby. An improvement?

I think one of the premises of the post Vat. II mentality is that we’re better educated and thus qualified to make swingeing changes to our religious practices. I have a notion that instead we’re making some very old mistakes all over again which were weeded out a long time ago, because of the problems they caused e.g. face-to-face confession.
Click to expand...
i have added my comments in bold
 
Ockham said:
Right on cue…

Actually, it was a curious man named Bugnini that wrote the Novus Ordo. If you read the preparatory and final documents of Vatican II you’ll see that the changes made were never called for by the Church. If you read the Bible you’ll see this isn’t the first time we’ve acted like disobedient children.
Click to expand...
Umm, yeah, I’ve read them. Nowhere in any liturgical document or Apostolic Constitution that promulgated official Catholic liturgical documents do I see Bugnini as the approving authority.

So is your ultimate authority the Bible, or the Catholic Magisterium?
 
God is the ultimate authority. If the laity respected the Magisterium we wouldn’t have the liturgical chaos of the past forty years, or CITH for that matter.

Here is Michael Davies account of Bugnini: ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/jun1989p17_640.html At the end is a quote from another ‘spirit if V2’ proponent:

“To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” Father Joseph Gelineau SJ

Seeing as though you’vre read them, can you provide the source from either the preparatory or council documents calling for a new Mass?
 
Ockham said:
God is the ultimate authority. If the laity respected the Magisterium we wouldn’t have the liturgical chaos of the past forty years, or CITH for that matter.

Here is Michael Davies account of Bugnini: ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/jun1989p17_640.html At the end is a quote from another ‘spirit if V2’ proponent:

“To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” Father Joseph Gelineau SJ

Seeing as though you’vre read them, can you provide the source from either the preparatory or council documents calling for a new Mass?
Click to expand...
CITH is a teaching of the Magisterium

Do you respect it?

The preparatory and Council documents called for very few specific reforms. Rather, the Council documents laid out teachings that were intended to be follow up on, with more specific changes. Of course the Council did not meet to call for a “new Mass” (as you call it). But the Council did call for a reform of the liturgy. Read Sacrosanctum Concilium.

And the same Magisterium that convened and approved the Council, convened, approved, and authorized the reforms mandated by the Council regarding the Liturgy that were taken up (appropriately) during and following the Council.
 
CITH is not taught by the Magisterium. It is an indult in certain countries. COTT is the official way of receiving the Blessed Sacrament and the only way you can receive from the Pope. Do you respect him?

Can you cite specifically the reforms called for by the documents? For example, where does it state Mass should be said in the venacular? Ad populum? CITH?
 
Ockham said:
CITH is not taught by the Magisterium. It is an indult in certain countries. COTT is the official way of receiving the Blessed Sacrament and the only way you can receive from the Pope. Do you respect him?

Can you cite specifically the reforms called for by the documents? For example, where does it state Mass should be said in the venacular? Ad populum? CITH?
Click to expand...
It’s not an indult in the U.S. And even if it was, only the Magisterium grants indults, so the Magisterium teaches/approves it.

COTT may be the only way the current Pope desires to administer communion, which is his personal choice, but not at all binding on all Popes (obviously).

Again, Vatican II documents did not specify the exact reforms, they left that to the Magisterium following the Council. And that’s what happened. The same Magisterium that taught at Vatican II implemented all changes and reforms following Vatican II. There’s only one Magisterium.
 
Ummmm … I thought CITH was universally an indult and that COTT was the norm. That is to say, those Bishops who want to allow CITH in their dioceses can do so and/but no one can forbid COTT. It’s a permission.

Like how the old Mass used to be in England and Wales. You could have it if your bishop allowed it.
 
“Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an **option **for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.” ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Three questions, therefore, were presented to the bishops; their replies to them, received up to 12 March 1969, were as follows:
  1. Do you think that a positive response should be given to the request to allow the rite of receiving communion in the hand?
    In favor: 567
    Opposed: 1,233
    In favor with reservations: 315
    Invalid votes: 20
  2. Are you in favor, provided the local Ordinary agrees, of prior experiments with this new rite in small communities?
    In favor: 751
    Opposed: 1,215
    Invalid votes: 70
  3. Are you of the opinion that the faithful, after well-planned catechetical preparation would welcome this new rite?
    Yes: 835
    No: 1,185
    Invalid Votes: 128
The Apostolic See earnestly urges bishops, priests, and faithful, therefore, to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed, in view of the judgement rendered by the majority of the Catholic episcopate, the form in use in the actual rite of the liturgy, and the general good of the Church itself.

By apostolic authority Pope Paul VI, on 28 May 1969, duly approved this Instruction, prepared at his command. He directed also that it be brought to the attention of the bishops by the presidents of the conferences of bishops.

Pope Paul VI Memoriale Domin

“While many think that it was Vatican II that called for this change, it is important to note: Vatican II never called for Communion in the hand. Communion in the hand was the result of **disobedience **which forced the hand of the Church (no pun intended!).” Fr. Greg J. Markey catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31755
 
Layman said:
Ummmm … I thought CITH was universally an indult and that COTT was the norm. That is to say, those Bishops who want to allow CITH in their dioceses can do so and/but no one can forbid COTT. It’s a permission.

Like how the old Mass used to be in England and Wales. You could have it if your bishop allowed it.
Click to expand...
It seems a lot of people are under that misconception. In the early years following Vatican II, yes, CITH was an indult. But now, at least for the U.S., it’s part of the GIRM, and so not an indult.

And, of course, many who are opposed to CITH seem to be unaware of the history of modes or reception of communion.
 
Ockham said:
“Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an **option **for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.” ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Three questions, therefore, were presented to the bishops; their replies to them, received up to 12 March 1969, were as follows:
  1. Do you think that a positive response should be given to the request to allow the rite of receiving communion in the hand?
    In favor: 567
    Opposed: 1,233
    In favor with reservations: 315
    Invalid votes: 20
  2. Are you in favor, provided the local Ordinary agrees, of prior experiments with this new rite in small communities?
    In favor: 751
    Opposed: 1,215
    Invalid votes: 70
  3. Are you of the opinion that the faithful, after well-planned catechetical preparation would welcome this new rite?
    Yes: 835
    No: 1,185
    Invalid Votes: 128
The Apostolic See earnestly urges bishops, priests, and faithful, therefore, to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed, in view of the judgement rendered by the majority of the Catholic episcopate, the form in use in the actual rite of the liturgy, and the general good of the Church itself.

By apostolic authority Pope Paul VI, on 28 May 1969, duly approved this Instruction, prepared at his command. He directed also that it be brought to the attention of the bishops by the presidents of the conferences of bishops.

Pope Paul VI Memoriale Domin

“While many think that it was Vatican II that called for this change, it is important to note: Vatican II never called for Communion in the hand. Communion in the hand was the result of **disobedience **which forced the hand of the Church (no pun intended!).” Fr. Greg J. Markey catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31755
Click to expand...
The Catholic tradition is so wonderful, and diverse, we all have periods we likely prefer. But we can’t live in the past. Tradition is not the dead faith of the living, but the living faith of the dead.
 
It’s absurd how certain defenders of CITH stoop to using obedience as their primary defence when in fact disobedience is how it got into the GIRM. If disobedient bishops put it into the GIRM faithful ones of the next generation will hopefully take it out.

The history of CITH among Catholics is disobedience. The Magisterium has always spoken out against it. If you can provide one quote of a Pope giving theological support for CITH I’d like to see it. Protestants practice CITH in part as a snub to Catholics who are supposed to believe in the Real Presence.

The future of the Church looks bright indeed. The seminaries for the traditional orders have waiting lists while the progressives are closing. Even though the TLM was suppressed for most of the past forty years and many Catholics today have never seen one, interest is strong for its return. Once the Baby Boomer generation has died off the Church can recover and return to its proper practices and identity.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.”

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

"In interview published in the Wednesday edition of L’Osservatore Romano, Pope Benedict’s new Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, Monsignor Guido Marini, says he believes that people receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue will become common practice at the Vatican.

Canada, Mexico, the Philippines and the United States are all countries that have been granted an exception from the universal practice of receiving Communion on the tongue."
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_prefers_communion_on_the_tongue_msgr._marini_says/
 
diggerdomer said:
The Catholic tradition is so wonderful, and diverse, we all have periods we likely prefer. But we can’t live in the past. Tradition is not the dead faith of the living, but the living faith of the dead.
Click to expand...
Um… wot? The living’s faith is dead?

It’s diverse, now, all right, with Latin binned and bishops allowing so much … creativity in our rites.
 
Ockham said:
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
Click to expand...
Citation for this? I Googled it and found only websites of a … er, certain persuasion, nothing that looked remotely legitimate or academic. Curious which document it’s in and what the Latin says.
 
How about providing a source proclaiming the wonders of CITH. Anything other than the ‘make your palm a throne’ mantra.
 
Ockham said:
How about providing a source proclaiming the wonders of CITH. Anything other than the ‘make your palm a throne’ mantra.
Click to expand...
i dont like the idea of my hands touching the Body of Christ… i would rather the priest do it…not even an EMHC
 
I wonder if a Catholic bishop was allowed to take a seat in the upper house of the British parliament and he was also a keen on modernist liturgical practices, would that make him, for all intents and purposes, a CITH Lord?

[runs away]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top