Latin mass questions

[Sirach2]

I try really hard to follow the rules of this forum. On other forums with different rules, I speak more freely on certain subjects. It is unfair to repeatedly make references to comments I have made elsewhere that sound like they violate the rules here. Nor should I be asked to explain comments that I have made on other forums.

I gave you a link where you alleged disobedience in this very thread, and the comments elsewhere were simply to defend against your unjust accusations that I am “maligning” you. Other than that, the FE comment would not have been needed - yet in the closed thread, you stated that bishops were disobedient more than once. If need be, it can be pulled for verification.

So my question was valid … WHY? … and I still received no answer. I would hope that we all love the Church enough not to air her soiled laundry in any manner whatsoever. There are enough scandals, without adding to it with these insinuations against our clergy.

Another question … WHY do you continue to portray me as maligning you? This is about the third post already. Are you trying to paint a public picture of me as a dissident? Whenever I make defense, you continue to keep the subject going, which IS against forum rules! If you truly desire to burn the hostility bridge, you are not doing a very good job.

 

[JustaServant]

Another question … WHY do you continue to portray me as maligning you? This is about the third post already. Are you trying to paint a public picture of me as a dissident? Whenever I make defense, you continue to keep the subject going, which IS against forum rules! If you truly desire to burn the hostility bridge, you are not doing a very good job.

Because over at FE, the Fishies, who are also members here, are working on the theory that you are Tom Casey.

 

[Sirach2]

Because over at FE, the Fishies, who are also members here, are working on the theory that you are Tom Casey.

And I suppose OraLabora, JReducation, TimH, and Melchior are all under suspicion as well. Hm. We’ll have to keep them guessing. It must give them a lot of entertainment.

 

[JustaServant]

And I suppose OraLabora, JReducation, TimH, and Melchior are all under suspicion as well. Hm. We’ll have to keep them guessing. It must give them a lot of entertainment.

Shhhh…you’ll give it away that I am really Tom Casey.

 

[floresco]

I gave you a link where you alleged disobedience in this very thread, and the comments elsewhere were simply to defend against your unjust accusations that I am “maligning” you. Other than that, the FE comment would not have been needed - yet in the closed thread, you stated that bishops were disobedient more than once. If need be, it can be pulled for verification.

I have no memory of stating that bishops were disobedient although I was using the term “disobedient” earlier in the thread. After one wise poster explained the problems with this word, I stated my resolve not to use it any more.

So my question was valid … WHY? … and I still received no answer. I would hope that we all love the Church enough not to air her soiled laundry in any manner whatsoever. There are enough scandals, without adding to it with these insinuations against our clergy.

A statement had been made that the claim that CITH was started in modern times by dissidents was traditionalist propaganda. This was very different from what I had heard previously and made me curious to discover the truth. That is why. It is a matter of Church history. I do not seeing discussing this as any different from discussing whether the practice of Indulgences was abused in the 15th century.

Another question … WHY do you continue to portray me as maligning you? This is about the third post already. Are you trying to paint a public picture of me as a dissident? Whenever I make defense, you continue to keep the subject going, which IS against forum rules! If you truly desire to burn the hostility bridge, you are not doing a very good job.

You keep ascribing negative motives to me. They are not true. If you would just talk about ideas and leave my motives out of it, there would be no problem. Of course, I am not trying to portray you as a dissident. I think that you are a sincere Catholic who is doing your best to follow God’s will. I would love to drop the subject of how you post about me. I will say nothing further about it after this post. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[floresco]

Because over at FE, the Fishies, who are also members here, are working on the theory that you are Tom Casey.

Over on Fish Eaters, I do not participate in such speculation. I try to avoid making negative comments about CAF. The one time I failed in this, I retracted it. Just this past week I defended a CAF moderation decision there. Please do not imply that I am a CAF basher.

 

[JustaServant]

Over on Fish Eaters, I do not participate in such speculation. I try to avoid making negative comments about CAF. The one time I failed in this, I retracted it. Just this past week I defended a CAF moderation decision there. Please do not imply that I am a CAF basher.

Translation:
“I hang out in a pig pen, but I don’;t play in the mud”.

Back to topic.

 

[JustaServant]

1. Just a comment, but I thought it was really powerful and emotional when we all knelt before the alter and the cross, including the priest. That image just stuck with me.

The beauty of the TLM is something to behold. To worship the way God intended man to approach Him leaves one with a lasting impression.
I hope you are continually blest by it.

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco:

R.C.:

The letter, then, was neither a universal grant of permission, nor a “separate issue”, but a sample that gave an idea of how was the Pope to grant permission to those who found themselves in the exceptional circumstance of having to request special permission for regularization of Communion in the hand.

This makes a lot of sense to me and explains the discrepancies in timeline and wording left by Sirach’s interpretation of the letter.

That would make sense if what RC stated was true, rather than his interpretation. If this was actually a “sample letter” and not official communication, then point #4 of that letter would not have provided further instruction.

1. With regard to the manner of administering the sacrament, one may follow the traditional method, which emphasized the ministerial function of the priest or deacon, in having them place the host in the hand of the communicant.

Furthermore, the final instruction asking for a report indicates that this was not just a “sample letter” but an authorization. I do not understand your reluctance to admit that your perception was incorrect.

1. Bishops allowing introduction of the new way of receiving communion are requested to send to this Congregation after six months a report on the result of its concession

.

 

[Sirach2]

Since this is one of those topics that is overdone without hiatus, I share some worthy reflections from JReducation on a previous thread not too long ago.

You cannot have disobedience when something is not prohibited or when the contrary is not commanded. Nor can you have disobedience when the individuals involved are incorrectly applying a concept. That’s not how Canon Law works. Canon Law always gives the greatest benefit of the doubt to the individual.

Words have meaning. When we use terms such as novelty and innovation, we reduce the significance, the value and the intent of an action. At times, people will use these terms with no ill will intended. They are simply repeating what they hear other people say. But very often, in the Traditionalist world, one hears these terms deliberately used with the full intent of demeaning, rejecting and even condescending. That’s not part of Catholic tradition.

If we examine our Catholic tradition one of the hallmarks of our saints and leaders is their demeanor. It’s always a very respectful one in tone and deed. In this world of traditionalism, we often seem to behave as if we have the right or the obligation to be condescending, dismissive and at times even crude in how we refer to the sacred, the clergy, or the Church in general. That’s something that we need to avoid like a plague. It does not make for good evangelization. On the contrary, it only makes enemies. The object must always be to draw men toward divine union, not to repel them with our attitude.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10066404&postcount=82

 

[floresco]

Second, the M.D. was in latin, as was this introduction but the balance was in French.

Acta Apostolicae Sedis Commentarium Officiale Instructio completur, in re pastorali, Epistula qua conceditur Conferentiis Episcopalibus indultum distribuendi fidelibus sacram Communionem in manu, cum omnes condiciones requisitae habeantur.

Translated: {sorry, it is google’s, but very close in meaning to Colin Donovan’s.

I translate this:
Acts of the Apostolic See Official Record: The Instruction is completed with the pastoral letter by which an indult is granted to Bishops’ Conferences for distributing to the faithful Holy Communion in the hand, when all the required conditions are met.

This supports R_C’s claim of how it should be understood, as does the letter itself:

REVERENDISSIME *

The asterisk appears to refer to a name to be filled in when used. Basically, it opens “Most Reverend _________” . This is just what we would expect in a form letter.

 

[Sirach2]

I translate this:
Acts of the Apostolic See Official Record: The Instruction is completed with the pastoral letter by which an indult is granted to Bishops’ Conferences for distributing to the faithful Holy Communion in the hand, when all the required conditions are met.

This supports R_C’s claim of how it should be understood, as does the letter itself:

The asterisk appears to refer to a name to be filled in when used. Basically, it opens “Most Reverend _________” . This is just what we would expect in a form letter.

And do you have some kind of proof that it was never sent to anyone? Or if it was, as I believe by the tone and instructions, do you know the names of the many “reverends” to whom the permission was given? This information is not accessible to lay persons. Why else would the Pope ask for a report in six months? If one would want to beat the dead horse and assert disobedience or a non-issue, they are barking up the proverbial tree. There is just not enough information on which to base that rumor.

Colin Donovan published the same view [that the Pope gave permission for CITH] with this concluding statement:

The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which “by itself” is not contrary to the faith is not in question.

There is nothing in his article to suggest that this was simply a form letter. I really think it behooves you to maintain this position, as many traditionalists do, and refuse to abandon ship, even if the Pope himself would answer you directly. I suggest that you read Bro. Jay’s comments just above your post.

I have finished here. There is no point debating folks who refuse to see.

 

[floresco]

And do you have some kind of proof that it was never sent to anyone? Or if it was, as I believe by the tone and instructions, do you know the names of the many “reverends” to whom the permission was given? This information is not accessible to lay persons. Why else would the Pope ask for a report in six months?

It was published with a list of countries to which the indult was granted and the dates it happened. This suggests that these are the times and places of the indult (and that there is no problem publishing this information.) None of these dates were 1969. The sample letter includes the request for a report in six months after receiving the indult presumably because this was a standard part of the process.

Realizing that this is a sample letter explains all the things that did not make sense to me before and is confirmed by the Latin introduction to it in the AAS. By the way, thanks for posting that. It really helped me to understand what was going on here.

 

[Sirach2]

It was published with a list of countries to which the indult was granted and the dates it happened. This suggests that these are the times and places of the indult (and that there is no problem publishing this information.) None of these dates were 1969.

Below is the correct understanding.

One important point that I think confuses some people is the fact that when Paul VI gave permission for CITH in 1969, it was only to individual bishops for the territory of their particular conference. When we read about the grants of indult some years later in the 70’s, these were for the entire country, rather than an individual diocese or conference. The Pope expanded the previous individual permission from “territorial conference” to “entire nation” through the use of the indult.

 

[floresco]

That is an incorrect understanding.

One important point that I think confuses some people is the fact that when Paul VI gave permission for CITH in 1969, it was only to individual bishops for the territory of their particular conference. When we read about the grants of indult some years later in the 70’s, these were for the entire country, rather than an individual diocese or conference, and expanded the permission from territorial “conference” to “entire nation” through the use of the indult.

This statement does not make sense. Individual bishops do not have authority over the territory of a conference. What is the source of this information? I see no reason to think that Paul VI gave anyone permission for CITH in 1969.

 

[Sirach2]

This statement does not make sense. Individual bishops do not have authority over the territory of a conference. What is the source of this information? I see no reason to think that Paul VI gave anyone permission for CITH in 1969.

No, you wouldn’t see. Not even after prolific posts submitted here and elsewhere.

 

[Sirach2]

Rather than use the words individual bishops, I probably should have used Colin Donovan’s word Presidents, or as the AAS worded it, Reverends. Sorry for the misprint.

Since none of us are able to know what the permission in 1969 truly entailed or whether it was confined to certain conferences addressed by Paul VI’s letter until a wider indult was granted in 1970, it is a fruitless pursuit to busy ourselves in matters that we are not privy to. Ps. 131. This topic has created division and harm every time it comes up on CAF, and I regret anyone being exposed to it for the spiritual disharmony it causes.

Floresco, pursue it at your own risk. I see that our minds will not meet in peace on this issue.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

All arguments are prohibited. Anyone who argues will receive consequences from an infraction to a permanent ban. You can ask and answer questions without arguing. If you cannot do so, please do not post on this thread. You do not have to agree with the other person’s response, but you must show him or her respect by not arguing with him or her. There are many other ways to express disagreement.

 

[floresco]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Casey.

 

[mtngal25]

Some people missed another explanation about the two species of communion being given out in both forms or in just one form Of course, we all know or should know that the whole Christ is present in each kind, not in just one kind or in part, etc. He is wholly present in either the bread or the wine. One receiving the Host receives the whole Christ. Also, during the plague or during pandemics, it is safer to not drink out of the same cup with a bunch of people. Disease can happen even if the bread is consecrated. If some one put poison on the bread, it would poison you because that poison does not change substance like the bread does and therefore would still do harm. Receiving from the cup may cause people to catch colds from others or the flu. It is a lot safer to receive only the Host rather than the cup. In protestant churches, they believe that both forms are only a symbol, so they receive in both kinds because of that. They don’t believe in the real presence anyway. They use individual glasses for the grapejuice they use so as to avoid using a common cup. I only like the Catholic way the best. When the church made adaptations over time, there were good practical reasons for them that people today ought to listen to. There is no good reason to bring back practices that proved abusive or unsanitary for people.