Fr. Jeffery Fasching Finds Renewal In The Traditional Latin Mass

[jewells17]

indeed, but look what we have to learn from. we have a renewal coming, but we need to learn more, i suspect that the generation we give birth to will be alot more faithful than us. and then the generation they give birth to will–God-willing–be alot better than them.

I think you are right and I remember reading how we fought satan chained and they will fight him unchained. No doubt…this refers to the occult and how it was restrained when we were coming up in age and now it is unrestrained…indeed. We shall continue to pray for them…they are a holy generation.

 

[jewells17]

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. That is why the most ardent defenders of all the changes these past forty years are people of that age.

The “Me Generation” changed the focus of our liturgy from God to mortals, simplified things, blurred the distinction between clergy and laity, sought to end “Catholic guilt” and attempted to reunify the lost sheep of Protestantism by becoming more like them.

If it is true that you don’t appreciate something until you’ve lost it then that would explain why the younger generations are yearning for the traditional liturgy and proper Catholic culture.

So true about the young people yearning for the traditional liturgy. Google “Father Donald Kloster Traditional Mass” and watch him on this video talk about the traditional liturgy and he explained things I never knew.

 

[jewells17]

i am not a priest, but i look at the latin mass as an inspiration myself. no offense meant but it seems that the younger generation as a whole seems to have stronger faith, more love for God, and more respect for His church and traditions than the older baby-boomer generation does.

When you have time…google “Father Donald Kloster Latin Mass” and watch the video…because I never knew some of the explanations for the rituals done that he speaks of. Never saw a better video about what’s going on in those old fashioned masses that I have visited a few times and it helps build a bridge between us and them…through understanding. I am all for coming together to understand and support each other as long as it’s not about socialism, marxism or redistribution of wealth.

 

[diggerdomer]

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 GIRM is approved by the Pope, and the Vatican.

For once, let me ask, respond directly to that…do you agree or disagree? Please, no obfuscation. Do you adhere to the GIRM, or not? Do you agree that it’s what has been approved by the Pope, the Vatican, and all Bishops?

If you agree that the GIRM is so approved, who are they disobeying?

If you disagree that the GIRM is so approved, then what Church or authority do you follow?

 

[diggerdomer]

I

The history of CITH among Catholics is disobedience. The Magisterium has always spoken out against it.

Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.

The fact is, the Magisterium approves CITH. See the GIRM for the U.S., for instance. I feel like a broken record here. I can’t believe you are not familiar with the GIRM as approved by the Magisterium for the U.S., and yet you continue to put forth opinions that are clearly contradictory to it.

When the Magisterium teaches about CITH, an oft-cited reference to St. John Chrysostom is given. In his baptismal instructions, he gives instruction on just how to receive communion in the hand properly, and cites other saints and Fathers of the Church as witnesses to the Tradition.

 

[diggerdomer]

“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

There you go again. Ok, something from 1973. Fine. But the Church did not stop teaching, believing, worshipping, etc., since 1973. The liturgical laws and practices and GIRM I am referring to are the current ones, the ones living Catholics are obligated to. Not historical artifacts as if such are frozen in time.

By the way, just so you’re clear, I have no problem with Communion on the tongue. The Church approves it, it’s part of tradition, I completely accept it. Communion in the hand is also approved by the Church, and part of tradition, and I accept it.

You don’t seem to accept what the Church does. Do you?

Care to deal with the current GIRM?

 

[diggerdomer]

How about providing a source proclaiming the wonders of CITH. Anything other than the ‘make your palm a throne’ mantra.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

And, why are you so dismissive of St. John Chrysostom? Isn’t he a credible witness of tradition for you, as he is for the Catholic Church?

 

[diggerdomer]

i dont like the idea of my hands touching the Body of Christ… i would rather the priest do it…not even an EMHC

A matter of personal preference. Completely fine. Not something taught or required by the Catholic Church, though.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

I was citing a quotation, I can’t recall the source, sorry. The point is, tradition is not some “dead” artifact from times past that we impose without any relevance on contemporary culture/people, but rather, it’s the living faith, the same professed, believed, worshiped, and taught, by all our ancestors, made meaningful in contemporary circumstances and experience.

I have no idea what you meant by “Latin binned”

 

[MarkThompson]

I have no idea what you meant by “Latin binned”

“The bin” is a term (Britishism, mostly, I think) for a trashcan, so “binned” means “consigned to the rubbish.” (It’s of course not true; I’m just telling you what he said. )

 

[diggerdomer]

“The bin” is a term (Britishism, mostly, I think) for a trashcan, so “binned” means “consigned to the rubbish.” (It’s of course not true; I’m just telling you what he said. )

Thanks! Appreciate it!

Wow…the English language is so close and yet so far…

Sorry if Ockham thinks Latin is “trashed” as the numerous parishes I worship at (we live in a city with an abundance of Catholic parishes) routinely include Latin refrains for parts of the Mass, which I enjoy and appreciate. Too bad for Ockham that he seems bereft of Latin in the Catholic Mass where he/she worships.

Thanks again, appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Ockham]

LOL, I guess that’s a no, then? Too bad.

Who are these ‘questionable’ sources you’ve found.

You may think reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is humourous but not all feel the same way.

If you challenge this author than please provide your own sources supporting CITH other than the ‘make your palm a throne’ quote.

"*The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1

A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.

Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.* "

Jude A Huntz
HOMELITIC & PASTORAL REVIEW March 1997
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Ockham]

Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.

The fact is, the Magisterium approves CITH. See the GIRM for the U.S., for instance. I feel like a broken record here. I can’t believe you are not familiar with the GIRM as approved by the Magisterium for the U.S., and yet you continue to put forth opinions that are clearly contradictory to it.

When the Magisterium teaches about CITH, an oft-cited reference to St. John Chrysostom is given. In his baptismal instructions, he gives instruction on just how to receive communion in the hand properly, and cites other saints and Fathers of the Church as witnesses to the Tradition.

You should feel like a broken record. I guess that’s how you managed to make over four thousand posts in little over a year.

Yes, I know it is in the GIRM in the U.S. as you put it (Waterloo, Ontario is not in the U.S. by the way). The fact is it got their out of disobedience. Pope Paul VI ruled against it. Are you saying he was wrong? Our current pontiff only distributes Holy Communion to those on their tongue while kneeling. Is he wrong?

When I attend a Novus Ordo I receive on the tongue after making a sign of reverence (bow) as instructed. The reason you don’t have to bow when kneeling is that to kneel is already a sign of reverence. Most people at Novus Ordos that I’ve seen don’t make any sign of reverence and often take a few steps prior to placing the Blessed Sacrament in their mouth.

It is every Catholic’s right to receive on the tongue. The priest may at his discretion (or the bishop) refuse to distribute to the hand. CITH may be in the GIRM (for now) but it is still an indult, an exception to the rule.

Do you have any pope, saint, or doctor of the Church who has actually taught or supported CITH? The GIRM isn’t teaching it is an instruction manual.

 

[Layman]

I was citing a quotation, I can’t recall the source, sorry. The point is, tradition is not some “dead” artifact from times past that we impose without any relevance on contemporary culture/people, but rather, it’s the living faith, the same professed, believed, worshiped, and taught, by all our ancestors, made meaningful in contemporary circumstances and experience.

In practice, what you’re advocating means whatever the locals fancy and can get away with. Happened to drop in on a N.O. Mass with some Latin in Westminster Cathedral recently. Some latin was used, some vernacular. EMHCs figured prominently, including a nun. They had white sashes on. I don’t know why.

Such elements are jarring in a supposedly mystical and mysterious rite. It’d be nice if you could be sure of a TLM without local creativity at least on a Sunday and the major feasts in a parish. Or at least a diocese.

 

[diggerdomer]

The fact is it got their out of disobedience. Pope Paul VI ruled against it. Are you saying he was wrong? Our current pontiff only distributes Holy Communion to those on their tongue while kneeling. Is he wrong?

So the GIRM approved by the Vatican is disobedient? Yes, or no?

No, of course Benedict XVI is not wrong, it’s his choice and he’s welcome to it. Did you read the part of my post where I stated clearly I have no problem with or objection to communion on the tongue? Just like I have no problem with or objection to communion in the hand? Both are approved by the Church, so I appreciate and accept both. Why don’t you?

Do you have any pope, saint, or doctor of the Church who has actually taught or supported CITH?

Yes, see usccb.org/liturgy/current/confirmation.shtml

 

[diggerdomer]

In practice, what you’re advocating means whatever the locals fancy and can get away with.

Nope. If that’s your conclusion I’m sorry, you are entirely misreading my intent.

 

[Ockham]

If you are sincere in not wanting to sound like a broken record please take some time to think before replying. If you can’t provide an example of CITH teaching then just admit it instead of incessantly repeating “it’s in the GIRM”. I have provided sources to make my point.

CITH got into the GIRM because disobedient people forced it there. The Magisterium caved to this pressure and granted it as an indult. The GIRM is changeable - the truth isn’t. If you are truly obedient to the Magisterium then you should not accept CITH. Would you worship a golden calf if your local bishop said it was ok?

I don’t approve of CITH because I know the history of it and reasons why it was banned for centuries - most of them actually. I also know the theology of COTT and the reasons why it is the universal norm of the Church. You should too. If passionate liberals forced all these ‘spirit of V2’ changes upon us perhaps it will take passionate traditionalists to fix the damage they created. There’s always attrition.

 

[Layman]

Nope. If that’s your conclusion I’m sorry, you are entirely misreading my intent.

In practical terms, what you’re advocating means local variation, regardless of your intent.

I’d say it takes an artist to put on a good secular show and a saint to make changes to a rite that will bring people closer to God. What a liturgical director of a parish will do will, statistically, be more likely to be merely banal or distracting.

Also, the old rite now is a safeguard against banal changes. We had a priest locally who began saying the old rite then added in readings from the new one. Eventually, the Mass had to stop as people stopped coming.

 

[Ockham]

"It is no longer possible, at a time when the world is rapidly evolving, to consider the rites as definitively fixed. There is a need for them to be regularly revised under the authority of the pope and bishop and with the help of the Christian laity, so as to better express, at a given moment, the unchangeable reality of the divine gift.?

Presence et Dialogue September 1969
Official Bulletin Archdiocese Paris France

“The celebration of Mass has now become an art involving different degrees of emphasis and tone, highlights, pauses, rests, and recommencements, crescendoes and diminuendoes, as in a symphony.”

Osservatore Romano March 15, 1974

 

[diggerdomer]

If you are sincere in not wanting to sound like a broken record please take some time to think before replying. If you can’t provide an example of CITH teaching then just admit it instead of incessantly repeating “it’s in the GIRM”. I have provided sources to make my point.

CITH got into the GIRM because disobedient people forced it there. The Magisterium caved to this pressure and granted it as an indult. The GIRM is changeable - the truth isn’t. If you are truly obedient to the Magisterium then you should not accept CITH. Would you worship a golden calf if your local bishop said it was ok?

I don’t approve of CITH because I know the history of it and reasons why it was banned for centuries - most of them actually. I also know the theology of COTT and the reasons why it is the universal norm of the Church. You should too. If passionate liberals forced all these ‘spirit of V2’ changes upon us perhaps it will take passionate traditionalists to fix the damage they created. There’s always attrition.

How is accepting what the Vatican teaches and officially promulgates being disobedient? Why don’t you accept it?

Could you please, for once, answer my questions, rather than going off on your own diatribe?