SAINT AGNES CATHEDRAL 533 South Jefferson Springfield, MO 65806
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
February 1st, 2015
Septuagesima Sunday
Epistle: 1 Cor. 9: 24-27; 10: 1-5
Gospel: Mt. 20: 1-16
Mon 2 No Latin Mass
Tue 3 Saint Blase, Bishop & Martyr
Wed 4 Requiem Mass + Reynold D'Souza
Thu 5 Saint Agatha * Virgin & Martyr
Fri 6 Sacred Heart of Jesus
Mass on February 6th will be followed by adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and benediction.
Mass on February 8th and February 22nd will be at 7:00pm.
Saint Paul encourages those who labor for the Lord by assuring them that “Each will receive his wages in proportion to his toil” (1Cor 3.8). “Whatever you do, work at it with your whole being. Do it for the Lord rather than for men, since you know full well you will receive an inheritance from Him as your reward” (Col 3.23f).
In other texts Saint Paul speaks of running the race to win the prize. In his letter to the Corinthians he says: “You know that while all the runners in the stadium take part in the race, the award goes to one man. In that case, run so as to win! Athletes deny themselves all sorts of things. They do this to win a crown of leaves that withers, but we a crown that is imperishable. I do not run like a man who loses sight of the finish line…What I do is discipline my own body and master it…Phil 3.14: “My entire attention is on the finish line as I run toward the prize to which God calls me—life on high in Christ Jesus.”
“The time of my dissolution is near. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have kept the faith. From now on a merited crown awaits me; on that day the Lord, just judge that He is, will reward it to me—and not only me, but to all who have looked for His appearing with eager longing” (2 Tim 4. 6-8).
Remember the theology of Saint Paul. A man is justified by faith and saved by grace, not by works. It is only works that proceed from faith and love that bring an eternal reward; and this only because God, by His grace, has made such good works possible and because he has graciously promised to reward them!
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Gainesville and Ava – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Gainesville and Ava - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Christ and the Church
The Church is also drawn by Christ to her future existence beyond time. When Christ comes again in glory, and the last enemy, death, has been destroyed (1Cor. 15.26f), when sin has been cast out and every evil overcome, and every tear has been wiped away (Rev. 7.17, 21.4), the Bride of the Lamb will appear in all her radiant beauty, without stain or wrinkle, and will enter into the unimaginable glory of the Lord. The Heavenly Jerusalem will be revealed in all its splendor (Rev. 21), which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man ever conceived (1Cor. 2.9). The corruption of this world will pass away, and a new heaven and a new earth will appear, this present world having undergone a profound transformation that fills it with the glory of God! The risen Lord will raise up our mortal bodies, endowing them with the marvelous qualities of His own glorified body: spirituality, incorruptibility, agility, and resplendent glory (1Cor. 15. 42-44).
Fr. Jeff Fasching
The Church is also drawn by Christ to her future existence beyond time. When Christ comes again in glory, and the last enemy, death, has been destroyed (1Cor. 15.26f), when sin has been cast out and every evil overcome, and every tear has been wiped away (Rev. 7.17, 21.4), the Bride of the Lamb will appear in all her radiant beauty, without stain or wrinkle, and will enter into the unimaginable glory of the Lord. The Heavenly Jerusalem will be revealed in all its splendor (Rev. 21), which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man ever conceived (1Cor. 2.9). The corruption of this world will pass away, and a new heaven and a new earth will appear, this present world having undergone a profound transformation that fills it with the glory of God! The risen Lord will raise up our mortal bodies, endowing them with the marvelous qualities of His own glorified body: spirituality, incorruptibility, agility, and resplendent glory (1Cor. 15. 42-44).
Fr. Jeff Fasching
Monday, January 26, 2015
We shall be one with God
We shall be one with God; indeed, we shall be like God, since we shall see Him as He is (1 Jn. 3.2). Thus we shall fully experience what it means to be sons of God. Unless we see the Church from this perspective and unless we live in this lively hope, we are missing the richest dimensions of the Church’s total existence. But we must also remember that the Church as she exists now is already participating in the eternal!
Fr. Jeff Fasching
We shall be one with God; indeed, we shall be like God, since we shall see Him as He is (1 Jn. 3.2). Thus we shall fully experience what it means to be sons of God. Unless we see the Church from this perspective and unless we live in this lively hope, we are missing the richest dimensions of the Church’s total existence. But we must also remember that the Church as she exists now is already participating in the eternal!
Fr. Jeff Fasching
Death
It is natural to fear death, but we really should not. In fact, it is not at all a morbid desire to long for death with one’s whole heart and soul! Actually we should rejoice at death because death means that we are finally delivered from this present “valley of tears” and all our earthly suffering! Death delivers us from our actual sins and through death we are given the chance to enter into the heavenly Paradise for which we were born!
What is death? Job says that our life is full of miseries, infirmities, crosses, persecutions and fears. This is not a life for rest and enjoyment, but for labor and suffering! The only way we can merit heaven is by toil, labor and pain. It is true that death is the punishment of sin, but the miseries this life offers are so great that death should seem to be a relief rather than a punishment.
If we are prepared to die, death is welcomed. In our earthly life the world, evil spirits, the flesh and the passions all draw the soul to sin and eternal death. But death brings us to the possession of Jesus Christ, our true life!
In Christ,
Fr. Jeff Fasching
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Bulletin 240
SAINT AGNES CATHEDRAL 533 South Jefferson Springfield, MO 65806
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
January 25, 2015
3rd Sunday after Epiphany
Epistle: Rom. 12: 16-21
Gospel: Mt. 8: 1-13
Mon 26 No Latin Mass
Tue 27 Requiem Mass + Msgr. John Henry Westhues
Wed 28 Saint Peter Nolasco, Confessor
Thu 29 Saint Francis de Sales-Bishop, Confessor & Doctor
Fri 30 Requiem Mass
God gives us so many gifts! Health, family, friends, talents, money...the list goes on and on. These are given to us not to be abused in vain ways, but in order to help our souls to sanctification. God gives us so many gifts of grace and holy inspirations. He gives us years and years of life upon this earth to repair and make up for past sins. However, many still refuse to amend their lives.
Many will regret neglecting the very little that was required of them to do while upon this earth in order to save their souls! For example, practicing mortification, overcoming human respect, avoiding occasions to sin, avoiding bad company, and turning to God in times of temptation. Many will be lost because they neglected these simple things.
Our lives are very short. We must sincerely beg God for the desire to amend them!
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Jan. 24 – 25 - 3rd Sunday of the Year
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Gainesville and Ava – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Gainesville and Ava - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
January 25, 2015
3rd Sunday after Epiphany
Epistle: Rom. 12: 16-21
Gospel: Mt. 8: 1-13
Mon 26 No Latin Mass
Tue 27 Requiem Mass + Msgr. John Henry Westhues
Wed 28 Saint Peter Nolasco, Confessor
Thu 29 Saint Francis de Sales-Bishop, Confessor & Doctor
Fri 30 Requiem Mass
God gives us so many gifts! Health, family, friends, talents, money...the list goes on and on. These are given to us not to be abused in vain ways, but in order to help our souls to sanctification. God gives us so many gifts of grace and holy inspirations. He gives us years and years of life upon this earth to repair and make up for past sins. However, many still refuse to amend their lives.
Many will regret neglecting the very little that was required of them to do while upon this earth in order to save their souls! For example, practicing mortification, overcoming human respect, avoiding occasions to sin, avoiding bad company, and turning to God in times of temptation. Many will be lost because they neglected these simple things.
Our lives are very short. We must sincerely beg God for the desire to amend them!
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Jan. 24 – 25 - 3rd Sunday of the Year
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Gainesville and Ava – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Gainesville and Ava - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Catholic Traditionalism verses Fundamentalism
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2013
Catholic Traditionalism verses Fundamentalism
A Traditional Latin Mass (Vetus Ordo) Celebrated at St. Agnes Cathedral in Springfield Missouri in 2010
Celebrant is Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching, the Most Rev. James V. Johnston kneels in Choir
Photo by John Kelly
NOTE: This article pertains primarily to Catholicism in the English-speaking world. The situation can be quite different in non-Anglophone countries.
Traditionalism and Fundamentalism; yes there is a difference. This is most especially the case in Catholicism. We see it in Protestantism too, but in Catholicism the line is more clearly drawn, and it is a line based in attitude.
Traditionalism is when Catholics cling to tradition, and overall, this is a very good thing. It helps to keep the Church connected to her past, and in the end, it keeps her identity clear. From the 1970s through early 2000s, there was a shortage of traditionalists in the Catholic Church, and the Church suffered because of this. Thankfully, that is starting to change. The trend toward returning to traditional practices really picked up in the late 1990s to early 2000s, however, because many priests and bishops had adopted a hostile attitude toward tradition, many traditionalists had nowhere to go but to illicit SSPX chapels and schismatic sedevacantist groups. Consequently, there was a mix between what I will henceforth refer to as "traditionalists" and "fundamentalists." Traditionalists mingled with the fundamentalists and vice versa, because they had nowhere else to go, creating a traditional-fundamental soup in those dioceses were the bishop was hostile to the traditional Latin mass and other traditional practises.
Fundamentalism in the Catholic world actually has a whole lot in common with fundamentalism in the Protestant world, and I'm sure some Catholic fundamentalists will object to me using that term in reference to them, and shriek at me making such a comparison. However, I am very familiar with fundamentalism from my experience as a Protestant. I know it like the back of my hand, and I can smell it a mile away. Fundamentalism, in a Catholic sense, is when a Catholic basically adopts an attitude of thinking he's more Catholic than the pope. I mean this quite literally. The pope is often referred to as a "heretic" or a "schismatic" or an "antipope." The mainstream Catholic Church is often seen as a "false church" of heresy, and the only "true Catholics" are those who adhere to their sectarian groups and mentality. A good example of this can often be found in the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X). Now it's not fair to paint all persons within this group a Catholic fundamentalists, but I think it is fair to say the SSPX fosters this sort of attitude among its members. It is an attitude of superiority, wherein one thinks one is "more Catholic," or even worse, "more legitimately Catholic" simply because one clings to the older traditions of the Church. However, it runs deeper than that. There is a doctrinal division too, wherein Catholic fundamentalists become a magisterium unto themselves, believing they are the only "authentic" interpreters of Catholic teaching and tradition. Even Rome is presumed to be "in error" about these things. That being said, there is always room for disagreement over some pastoral issues within the Catholic Church, but this isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about two Catholics, who both submit to the authority of Rome and the local bishop, but have a vehement disagreement over how a certain Church teaching or discipline should be interpreted. I'm not talking about Catholics who have different liturgical preferences and think the Church has gone too far one way or another. I'm not even talking about Catholics who say the pope is wrong on this issue or that. Again, there is room for disagreement within the pale of orthodoxy. No! What I'm talking about here is entirely different. I'm talking about a Catholic, who may have a disagreement with the Church (over this issue or that), and then takes it to the point where he pronounces the Church to be false, or having been "taken over" by the forces of evil, to the point where this Catholic feels he can no longer be a regular member of the Church, but instead must live and worship apart from it. This is when traditionalism goes beyond traditionalism and becomes fundamentalism. The SSPX is not alone in flirting with this kind of fundamentalist attitude. There are other organisations even more involved: such as the SSPV (Society of Saint Pius V) for example, which is outright sedevacantist, along with the CMIQ (Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen), and the MHFM (Most Holy Family Monastery) among others. While it would be unfair and (so far) inaccurate to classify the SSPX as a sedevacantist organisation, it is however accurate to say that many sedevacantists frequent SSPX chapels and mingle in this traditionalist-fundamentalist soup.
All of this changed in July of 2007, when Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum. To any non-traditionalist Catholic reading this, pay attention here, because I'm going to reveal something big to you. No recent document of the Church has done more to hinder the fundamentalist movement in Catholicism than this document. If you don't like Catholic fundamentalism, then you better love Summorum Pontificum, and here is why...
Summorum Pontificum is the papal motu proprio that liberalised the regular celebration of the pre-1970 Traditional Latin Mass. It brought the Missal of 1962 back into the mainstream of Catholicism as the "Vetus Ordo" or the "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite." This means that all lay Catholics, anywhere in the world, have a sacred RIGHT under canon law to request, and be accommodated with, a Traditional Latin Mass to a stable and consistent group. It also means that every Catholic priest, everywhere in the world, has the sacred right under canon law to celebrate this form of the mass (privately), assuming he is competent to do so, without permission from his local bishop or ordinary. Contemporary or "modernist" Catholics were initially livid about this, and some of them still are, but I assert their frustration is misplaced, and in fact, they should rejoice at this decision, because it has done more to undermine Catholic fundamentalism than anything else. What Pope Benedict XVI did here was pull the rug out from underneath the Catholic fundamentalist movement. You see, prior to 2007, Catholic fundamentalists had a virtual monopoly on the Traditional Latin Mass, especially in those areas where the local bishop and priests where hostile to the older traditions of the Church. What these bishops and priests didn't realise, was that their hostility toward older traditions was actually the very "fuel" feeding the Catholic fundamentalist movement. Those Catholics who were merely "traditionalists," and not fundamentalist in attitude, had nowhere else to go, but to a local schismatic chapel, where they could be gradually indoctrinated with fundamentalist propaganda. In short, the greatest thing fuelling the rise of Catholic fundamentalism was the very hostility toward tradition that some bishops and priests were using in a futile attempt to quash it. Here is the fatal flaw that many contemporary or "modernist" bishops made. They failed to understand that fundamentalism is 100% reactionary in nature. It is a response to provocation, nothing more and nothing less. By creating a provocation, such as eliminating all Latin masses for example, the bishop actually creates the perfect conditions necessary for the rise of Catholic fundamentalism in his diocesan territory. Nowhere was this more evident than in my own local diocese, wherein the previous bishop (presumably in an attempt to quash fundamentalism) did just that. He banned traditional Latin masses all throughout the diocese. It wasn't long after that a local SSPX chapel sprang up, and grew, and grew, and grew! I suspect it would likely be nearly a mega-church by now, where it not for Pope Benedict XVI's intervention in 2007 with Summorum Pontificum. By 2008 a new bishop was installed in the diocese, and he immediately provided for a traditional Latin mass to be celebrated in his own cathedral almost daily. As a result, the growth of the local SSPX chapel came to a grinding halt. The damage was done by the unwitting actions of the previous bishop, but is now controlled (for the time being) by the actions of the new bishop. In short, all Catholics must learn a lesson from this, because the exact same thing can be seen in the Protestant world. You don't stop fundamentalism by attacking tradition. In fact, that is the worst possible thing you can do, because you see, fundamentalism is entirely 100% reactionary. If you create a provocation, you will get a reaction. The way you stop fundamentalism, contain it, and limit it's growth, is by embracing tradition! For heaven's sake people, learn this! Burn this into your brains! A Catholic fundamentalist is no different than a Protestant fundamentalist in attitude and action. You want to stop fundamentalism -- then embrace tradition!
As a general rule, there is a simple litmus test that can be applied to determine if a Catholic is a fundamentalist or merely a traditionalist. Protestants don't have this luxury in identifying their fundamentalists, as they don't have the necessary structures. It's called the full-communion rule. This is how you know. If the Catholic in question is very traditional in nature, and exclusively attends the traditional Latin mass, but does so in a parish or cathedral that is under the bishop, or else a traditionalist society that is approved and regularised by Rome, then what you have here is a Catholic traditionalist -- not a fundamentalist. Traditionalists are absolutely not threat to the Catholic Church. Indeed, they are the spice and life of the Church, because they keep her connected to her past and very identity. They are humble. They submit to proper ecclesiastical authorities. They are in full union with the pope. Such people should be celebrated not ostracised.
If however, the Catholic in question is very traditional in nature, exclusively attends the traditional Latin mass, but does so in a parish that is neither approved nor regularised by Rome (when a fully regularised mass is available nearby), then what you have here (in most cases) is a fundamentalist -- not a traditionalist. This is an extremely important distinction, because the term "radical traditionalist" or "rad-trad" is often incorrectly applied to these people. Because you see, there is nothing "traditional" about breaking communion with Rome, or worshipping at a mass that is neither approved nor regularised. A mass that is illicit is anything but "traditional." It is the very antithesis of "traditionalism." Fundamentalist -- yes. Traditionalist -- no! Not even close. I assert if Pope Pius X were alive as pontiff today, he would make many changes to today's Church, but simultaneously, I assert he would excommunicate the fundamentalist society that bears his name (SSPX), along with anyone who continued to frequent their masses. No sir, there is nothing "traditional" about bucking the authority of Rome.
What Pope Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum was brilliant, and he will remembered by future generations as one of the greatest minds in Church history. By regularising the traditional Latin mass throughout the Church again, he effectively put an end to the virtual monopoly fundamentalists had on traditional Catholicism. He opened wide the doors of the Church to traditionalist Catholics who do not fit in with the fundamentalists they had previously associated with in illicit chapels and groups.
So let's start using terminology correctly, and reclaiming "traditionalism" as something that is welcome within the Catholic Church. Traditional Catholics who remain humble and submissive to the pope and bishops should be given praise and support, even if you're a priest or layperson who wants nothing to do with this way of expressing Catholicism. Likewise, let's start identifying those who operate outside the Church as what they are -- fundamentalists. As their behaviour is strikingly similar to fundamentalism within Protestantism, even to the point of declaring the pope a "heretic." Finally, it's time to stop confusing traditionalists with fundamentalists. There is a difference, and it's insulting to traditionalists within the Catholic Church to classify them with the same word used to describe fundamentalists outside the Church. It is also counter-productive. If you're a Catholic who doesn't care for fundamentalism, then stop calling it "traditionalism." It is not. Stop calling fundamentalist "traditionalists." They are not. There is a difference. Traditionalists operate inside the Church, fundamentalists do not. Let's start recognising that please!
-----------
This article was posted on this website at the request of the Rev. Jeff Fasching.
Posted by Shane Schaetzel at 6:27 PM
Catholic Traditionalism verses Fundamentalism
A Traditional Latin Mass (Vetus Ordo) Celebrated at St. Agnes Cathedral in Springfield Missouri in 2010
Celebrant is Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching, the Most Rev. James V. Johnston kneels in Choir
Photo by John Kelly
NOTE: This article pertains primarily to Catholicism in the English-speaking world. The situation can be quite different in non-Anglophone countries.
Traditionalism and Fundamentalism; yes there is a difference. This is most especially the case in Catholicism. We see it in Protestantism too, but in Catholicism the line is more clearly drawn, and it is a line based in attitude.
Traditionalism is when Catholics cling to tradition, and overall, this is a very good thing. It helps to keep the Church connected to her past, and in the end, it keeps her identity clear. From the 1970s through early 2000s, there was a shortage of traditionalists in the Catholic Church, and the Church suffered because of this. Thankfully, that is starting to change. The trend toward returning to traditional practices really picked up in the late 1990s to early 2000s, however, because many priests and bishops had adopted a hostile attitude toward tradition, many traditionalists had nowhere to go but to illicit SSPX chapels and schismatic sedevacantist groups. Consequently, there was a mix between what I will henceforth refer to as "traditionalists" and "fundamentalists." Traditionalists mingled with the fundamentalists and vice versa, because they had nowhere else to go, creating a traditional-fundamental soup in those dioceses were the bishop was hostile to the traditional Latin mass and other traditional practises.
Fundamentalism in the Catholic world actually has a whole lot in common with fundamentalism in the Protestant world, and I'm sure some Catholic fundamentalists will object to me using that term in reference to them, and shriek at me making such a comparison. However, I am very familiar with fundamentalism from my experience as a Protestant. I know it like the back of my hand, and I can smell it a mile away. Fundamentalism, in a Catholic sense, is when a Catholic basically adopts an attitude of thinking he's more Catholic than the pope. I mean this quite literally. The pope is often referred to as a "heretic" or a "schismatic" or an "antipope." The mainstream Catholic Church is often seen as a "false church" of heresy, and the only "true Catholics" are those who adhere to their sectarian groups and mentality. A good example of this can often be found in the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X). Now it's not fair to paint all persons within this group a Catholic fundamentalists, but I think it is fair to say the SSPX fosters this sort of attitude among its members. It is an attitude of superiority, wherein one thinks one is "more Catholic," or even worse, "more legitimately Catholic" simply because one clings to the older traditions of the Church. However, it runs deeper than that. There is a doctrinal division too, wherein Catholic fundamentalists become a magisterium unto themselves, believing they are the only "authentic" interpreters of Catholic teaching and tradition. Even Rome is presumed to be "in error" about these things. That being said, there is always room for disagreement over some pastoral issues within the Catholic Church, but this isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about two Catholics, who both submit to the authority of Rome and the local bishop, but have a vehement disagreement over how a certain Church teaching or discipline should be interpreted. I'm not talking about Catholics who have different liturgical preferences and think the Church has gone too far one way or another. I'm not even talking about Catholics who say the pope is wrong on this issue or that. Again, there is room for disagreement within the pale of orthodoxy. No! What I'm talking about here is entirely different. I'm talking about a Catholic, who may have a disagreement with the Church (over this issue or that), and then takes it to the point where he pronounces the Church to be false, or having been "taken over" by the forces of evil, to the point where this Catholic feels he can no longer be a regular member of the Church, but instead must live and worship apart from it. This is when traditionalism goes beyond traditionalism and becomes fundamentalism. The SSPX is not alone in flirting with this kind of fundamentalist attitude. There are other organisations even more involved: such as the SSPV (Society of Saint Pius V) for example, which is outright sedevacantist, along with the CMIQ (Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen), and the MHFM (Most Holy Family Monastery) among others. While it would be unfair and (so far) inaccurate to classify the SSPX as a sedevacantist organisation, it is however accurate to say that many sedevacantists frequent SSPX chapels and mingle in this traditionalist-fundamentalist soup.
All of this changed in July of 2007, when Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum. To any non-traditionalist Catholic reading this, pay attention here, because I'm going to reveal something big to you. No recent document of the Church has done more to hinder the fundamentalist movement in Catholicism than this document. If you don't like Catholic fundamentalism, then you better love Summorum Pontificum, and here is why...
Summorum Pontificum is the papal motu proprio that liberalised the regular celebration of the pre-1970 Traditional Latin Mass. It brought the Missal of 1962 back into the mainstream of Catholicism as the "Vetus Ordo" or the "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite." This means that all lay Catholics, anywhere in the world, have a sacred RIGHT under canon law to request, and be accommodated with, a Traditional Latin Mass to a stable and consistent group. It also means that every Catholic priest, everywhere in the world, has the sacred right under canon law to celebrate this form of the mass (privately), assuming he is competent to do so, without permission from his local bishop or ordinary. Contemporary or "modernist" Catholics were initially livid about this, and some of them still are, but I assert their frustration is misplaced, and in fact, they should rejoice at this decision, because it has done more to undermine Catholic fundamentalism than anything else. What Pope Benedict XVI did here was pull the rug out from underneath the Catholic fundamentalist movement. You see, prior to 2007, Catholic fundamentalists had a virtual monopoly on the Traditional Latin Mass, especially in those areas where the local bishop and priests where hostile to the older traditions of the Church. What these bishops and priests didn't realise, was that their hostility toward older traditions was actually the very "fuel" feeding the Catholic fundamentalist movement. Those Catholics who were merely "traditionalists," and not fundamentalist in attitude, had nowhere else to go, but to a local schismatic chapel, where they could be gradually indoctrinated with fundamentalist propaganda. In short, the greatest thing fuelling the rise of Catholic fundamentalism was the very hostility toward tradition that some bishops and priests were using in a futile attempt to quash it. Here is the fatal flaw that many contemporary or "modernist" bishops made. They failed to understand that fundamentalism is 100% reactionary in nature. It is a response to provocation, nothing more and nothing less. By creating a provocation, such as eliminating all Latin masses for example, the bishop actually creates the perfect conditions necessary for the rise of Catholic fundamentalism in his diocesan territory. Nowhere was this more evident than in my own local diocese, wherein the previous bishop (presumably in an attempt to quash fundamentalism) did just that. He banned traditional Latin masses all throughout the diocese. It wasn't long after that a local SSPX chapel sprang up, and grew, and grew, and grew! I suspect it would likely be nearly a mega-church by now, where it not for Pope Benedict XVI's intervention in 2007 with Summorum Pontificum. By 2008 a new bishop was installed in the diocese, and he immediately provided for a traditional Latin mass to be celebrated in his own cathedral almost daily. As a result, the growth of the local SSPX chapel came to a grinding halt. The damage was done by the unwitting actions of the previous bishop, but is now controlled (for the time being) by the actions of the new bishop. In short, all Catholics must learn a lesson from this, because the exact same thing can be seen in the Protestant world. You don't stop fundamentalism by attacking tradition. In fact, that is the worst possible thing you can do, because you see, fundamentalism is entirely 100% reactionary. If you create a provocation, you will get a reaction. The way you stop fundamentalism, contain it, and limit it's growth, is by embracing tradition! For heaven's sake people, learn this! Burn this into your brains! A Catholic fundamentalist is no different than a Protestant fundamentalist in attitude and action. You want to stop fundamentalism -- then embrace tradition!
As a general rule, there is a simple litmus test that can be applied to determine if a Catholic is a fundamentalist or merely a traditionalist. Protestants don't have this luxury in identifying their fundamentalists, as they don't have the necessary structures. It's called the full-communion rule. This is how you know. If the Catholic in question is very traditional in nature, and exclusively attends the traditional Latin mass, but does so in a parish or cathedral that is under the bishop, or else a traditionalist society that is approved and regularised by Rome, then what you have here is a Catholic traditionalist -- not a fundamentalist. Traditionalists are absolutely not threat to the Catholic Church. Indeed, they are the spice and life of the Church, because they keep her connected to her past and very identity. They are humble. They submit to proper ecclesiastical authorities. They are in full union with the pope. Such people should be celebrated not ostracised.
If however, the Catholic in question is very traditional in nature, exclusively attends the traditional Latin mass, but does so in a parish that is neither approved nor regularised by Rome (when a fully regularised mass is available nearby), then what you have here (in most cases) is a fundamentalist -- not a traditionalist. This is an extremely important distinction, because the term "radical traditionalist" or "rad-trad" is often incorrectly applied to these people. Because you see, there is nothing "traditional" about breaking communion with Rome, or worshipping at a mass that is neither approved nor regularised. A mass that is illicit is anything but "traditional." It is the very antithesis of "traditionalism." Fundamentalist -- yes. Traditionalist -- no! Not even close. I assert if Pope Pius X were alive as pontiff today, he would make many changes to today's Church, but simultaneously, I assert he would excommunicate the fundamentalist society that bears his name (SSPX), along with anyone who continued to frequent their masses. No sir, there is nothing "traditional" about bucking the authority of Rome.
What Pope Benedict XVI did with Summorum Pontificum was brilliant, and he will remembered by future generations as one of the greatest minds in Church history. By regularising the traditional Latin mass throughout the Church again, he effectively put an end to the virtual monopoly fundamentalists had on traditional Catholicism. He opened wide the doors of the Church to traditionalist Catholics who do not fit in with the fundamentalists they had previously associated with in illicit chapels and groups.
So let's start using terminology correctly, and reclaiming "traditionalism" as something that is welcome within the Catholic Church. Traditional Catholics who remain humble and submissive to the pope and bishops should be given praise and support, even if you're a priest or layperson who wants nothing to do with this way of expressing Catholicism. Likewise, let's start identifying those who operate outside the Church as what they are -- fundamentalists. As their behaviour is strikingly similar to fundamentalism within Protestantism, even to the point of declaring the pope a "heretic." Finally, it's time to stop confusing traditionalists with fundamentalists. There is a difference, and it's insulting to traditionalists within the Catholic Church to classify them with the same word used to describe fundamentalists outside the Church. It is also counter-productive. If you're a Catholic who doesn't care for fundamentalism, then stop calling it "traditionalism." It is not. Stop calling fundamentalist "traditionalists." They are not. There is a difference. Traditionalists operate inside the Church, fundamentalists do not. Let's start recognising that please!
-----------
This article was posted on this website at the request of the Rev. Jeff Fasching.
Posted by Shane Schaetzel at 6:27 PM
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
The State of Grace and Charity
Sanctifying grace makes one holy and pleasing to God and gives an estimable value to one’s good actions done with love. If one lacks sanctifying grace, one is spiritually dead, and thus unable to do anything of value for eternal life. This is clearly implied in the teaching of Scripture and of the magisterium.
At the Last Supper, Jesus told His disciples that he is the vine and they are the branches; if they remain in Him they will bear much fruit, but if they are cut off from Him they can do nothing for eternal life (Jn 15.4f). Saint Paul teaches that whatever good deeds one accomplishes, if one does not have charity (and therefore the state of grace which always accompanies it), one gains nothing “If I give everything I have to feed the poor and hand over my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing,” (1 Cor. 13.2).
Fr. Jeff Fasching
Monday, January 19, 2015
The Crisis and the Storm
The Crisis and the Storm
Originally posted on FullyChristian.Com, reprinted here by permission. Source: http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-fourth-great-crisis.html
THE CRISIS AND THE STORM
In ages past, the Catholic Church faced three great crises....
The First Great Crisis was the Arian Heresy, and it was by far the worst. It happened in the fourth century and lasted about sixty years. The crisis centred around the divinity of Jesus Christ, wherein a rogue priest, named Arius, challenged established Church doctrine that Jesus Christ is divine, and God exists in the form of Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Arius asserted that Jesus was merely a man, a great prophet, and the promised Messiah, but not God. Arius was the first one to come up with the concept of a "Bible" or Canon of Scripture, in which he hand-selected the books contained therein, all of them affirming his heretical views. This period saw the majority of the world's Christian bishops, priests and laity siding with Arius. The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople were held during this time, and in response the Church not only condemned Arius and his heresy, but also formulated the Nicene Creed and commissioned the work of compiling an authentic Christian Bible, particularly the New Testament, which happens to be the same one all Christians use today. The First Great Crisis of the Church came to an end with the dismantling of Arianism and the victory of the Catholic Church.
The Second Great Crisis in the Church came during the tenth century, in what some have called the "Obscure Century". This was a period when the papacy was corrupted by wicked families with great wealth and political power. During this time the papacy was drug through the mud, so to speak, with corrupt popes, nepotism, materialism, political ambitions, and so on. No official heresy was taught from the Chair of Peter, but the level of corruption and lack of discipline led many Catholics to be carried away by heretical doctrines anyway.
The Third Great Crisis in the Church was called the Occidental Schism (or "Western Schism"), which was in part caused by the exile of the papacy to Avignon in France. This led to confusion which ultimately culminated in the reign of three "popes" simultaneously, each contenting to be the one true authentic pope. The crisis was ended at the Council of Constance in 1414-1418, when two of the three "popes" agreed to resign for the greater good of the Church, the third was deposed by the council, and a new authentic pope was elected in their places.
Now we face the FOURTH GREAT CRISIS of the Catholic Church. These words are not my own. They come from Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary of Astana (Kazakhstan), who's interview can be read on Rorate Caeli blog. The Fourth Great Crisis in the Catholic Church can be summarised as the widespread abuse of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is manifested in the form of liturgical, doctrinal and pastoral abuse.
The seeds of this crisis began in the middle twentieth century, before the Second Vatican Council and shortly after World War II. It was at this time that the focus of leaders within the Catholic Church began to shift from God to man. The discipline of psychology was growing in popularity at the time, and many Church leaders started to embrace it. Along with that, new theologians were coming to the forefront that questioned what was previously established Church teaching. Into this mix the Second Vatican Council was called. Pope Benedict XVI, who was present at the Council as Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, in one of his final public addresses as pontiff some fifty years later, clarified the situation that existed at that time. (I blogged on this extensively here.) In summary, he said that "two councils" were going on simultaneously. The first was the "Council of the Fathers", or the authentic Second Vatican Council, which is what the bishops were actually discussing in Rome. The second was the "Council of the Media", which was a counterfeit council created by the mainstream news press, in which the documents of the Second Vatican Council were "reinterpreted" by the press, and then disseminated to the public with a remarkably Left-wing and Modernist spin that the Council Fathers never intended. This process has continued, more or less, for the last 50 years, to a point where we now live in a time when the popular media has more influence on Catholics than the bishops of the Church. What we have witnessed in the last half century is nothing short than a psychological coup d'état on the minds of faithful Catholics, wherein the authentic leadership of the Church was replaced by the counterfeit leadership of the mainstream press.
Immediately following the Second Vatican Council was the introduction of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. On the whole, the missal was a simplification of the Roman Liturgy, making room for the expansion of Lectionary readings, as well as greater liturgical participation by the faithful laity. This was all it was ever intended to do, and the Council Fathers, previously assembled in Rome, envisioned a future liturgy with greater public participation and more reading from the Sacred Scriptures. They also envisioned a future liturgy that looked remarkably similar to the Missal of Saint Pius V, celebrated by the Council Fathers at the Second Vatican Council. That was not to happen. Immediately, the counterfeit Council of the Media went into action in the 1970s, following the release of the new missal, reinterpreting the intention and purpose of the new liturgy. What was produced was a new Roman liturgy that scarcely looks anything like what the Second Vatican Council intended, resulting in a complete loss of the Latin language (a language the Council Fathers affirmed as liturgically necessary), the loss of Gregorian chant, and most profoundly, a watered-down presentation of the Eucharist wherein the faithful receive communion in the hand while standing, and the sacred tabernacle is literally pushed off to some remote corner of the parish chapel. In almost all celebrations of the new missal, the priest faces the people, and in those parishes where the tabernacle is set off to the side somewhere, it leaves the congregation with the visual impression that man is the centre of the liturgy not God.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), in his book Spirit of the Liturgy put it this way:
'In the very form of its places of divine worship, which we have just been considering, Christianity, speaking and thinking in a Semitic way, has laid down principles by which this question can be answered. Despite all the variations in practise that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the East is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again. Here both the fidelity to the gift already bestowed and the dynamism of going forward are given equal expression... Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practise of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priest and people got labelled as "celebrating towards the wall" or "turning your back on the people" and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable. And this alone explains why the meal – even in modern pictures – became the normative idea of liturgical celebration for Christians. In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest – the "presider," as they now prefer to call him – becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.... Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, "make their own contribution." Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern".... The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.'
THUD! And with that, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) summarised the prevailing direction of the Catholic Church in the modern age. The Council of the Media was so powerful that it affected the minds of some priests and bishops, reorienting them toward a new hierarchy, one in which the Zeitgeist of Modernism (the diabolical spirit of our age) reigns supreme.
Ratzinger characterised the fruit of this zeitgeist as the "tyranny of relativism" in which sin and depravity is tolerated in the name of "tolerance", while objection to sin and depravity is not tolerated in the name of "tolerance". So we see it played out in the Western governments of today. Easy "no-fault" divorce is commonplace, as is unmarried sexual cohabitation, artificial contraception and abortion on demand. A tide of homosexuality is rising at a rate unseen since the days of Pagan Rome, and once again in the name of "tolerance" this Zeitgeist of Modernism imposes a tyranny of relativism upon anyone who would dare speak out against it. Legal homosexual unions, mockingly called "marriages", have become the norm in Europe and Canada, while in the United States, one state after another falls to this tyranny in spite of the electoral will of the people.
In Christianity, the Zeitgeist of Modernism, with its tyranny of relativism, has wreaked havoc on the Protestant world. What was once just a couple dozen denominations and sects has exploded into literally hundreds, as conservative Protestants, faithful to traditional Christian morality, have fled their mainline denominations to create new splinter churches that maintain older Biblical standards. These "conservative" churches provide a refuge of peace for now, but the Zeitgeist of Modernism knows no denominational boundaries. Already the tyranny of relativism is knocking at the doors of many of these new conservative Protestant denominations. Some religious trend observers have forecasted their downfall within a matter of a decade or two.
In the Catholic Church, the Zeitgeist of Modernism, with its tyranny of relativism, has not fractured the unity of Rome -- yet -- but it has apparently infiltrated into the highest echelons of the Church hierarchy. Priests, bishops and even cardinals have been unable to evade its deep reaching tentacles. We have seen this unfold over decades with priests who refuse to teach their congregations the evils of: divorce, cohabitation, contraception, abortion, euthanasia and homosexual acts. We have seen this unfold over decades with bishops who refuse to enforce Canon 915 by making excommunication and interdiction almost unheard of in the modern Church. We have seen this unfold over decades with innumerable examples of liturgical innovation and abuse. We have seen this unfold over decades in the form of a clerical sex scandal, with the abuse of minors, that is unprecedented in the whole 2,000 years of Church history!
Now, after the election of Pope Francis, the mainstream press has put the Council of the Media into overdrive. If the Council of the Media gave us that diabolical "Spirit of Vatican II", which had nothing to do with the actual Vatican II, then what we are now witnessing is the equally diabolical "Spirit of Pope Francis" which has nothing to do with the real Pope Francis -- or so we can only hope. This artificial "Spirit of Pope Francis" is in every way heterodox. It embraces homosexual acts along with homosexual persons, as well as divorce itself along with divorced people. It makes no distinction between the act and the person. All is one in the same, with this "lovey-dovey, hippy-dippy" new pope, who refuses to judge anything, and views everything as permissible. Is the real Pope Francis anything like what the media has portrayed in its artificial "Spirit of Pope Francis"? We hope not, but only time will tell.
In the midst of this latest media push comes the Extraordinary Synod on the Family this October, to be followed by an Ordinary Synod on the Family in October of 2015. As we have seen unfold in the Extraordinary Synod, the sum of all fears has been realised. The Zeitgeist of Modernism has reached its tentacles deep into the Church hierarchy, and touched the highest ranking prelates with its tyranny of relativism. We have seen a statement released calling for changes in Church discipline, tone and language, related to the sins of: adultery, fornication, contraception and homosexuality. At the centre of this agenda is a push to permit the reception of Holy Communion (the Holy Eucharist) to those knowingly and obstinately in mortal sin, all with the blessing of the Catholic Church. Along with this comes the predictable "Synod of the Media" which is already making international headlines. As terrible as the Extraordinary Synod has become, the "Synod of the Media" will compound the situation, and make it so much worse, with the news media's reinterpretation and repackaging of the Synod's already warped message.
It remains to be seen what will come of this, and the first Synod report is just preliminary, but with this report, it has become painfully clear and obvious that Bishop Athanasius Schneider was right. With pinpoint accuracy he nailed it. We are now in the Fourth Great Crisis of the Catholic Church. The crisis revolves around the nature of the Holy Eucharist and abuses related to it. Surveys of Catholics all over the world reveal that the doctrine of the transubstantiation (literal presence of Christ) is no loner believed by a majority of Catholics, and this perhaps explains a lot. It is no wonder that the Eucharist is no longer centre in Catholic life, when the tabernacles are placed in some obscure corner of the parish church. It is no wonder when communicants are no longer asked to kneel in the presence of God, and receive Him enthroned on their tongue, but instead take Him in their own hands like a common cookie to be consumed as a casual snack. It is no wonder when the sacrament of confession is celebrated only occasionally, and rarely before mass, so that the faithful are not reminded of their need to confess their sins and prepare themselves for physical communion with God. It is no wonder when the liturgy becomes a "self-enclosed circle" wherein the priest, and not the sacrament, become the centre of attention. It is no wonder when the liturgy takes on an innovative carnival atmosphere, instead of a solemn and reverent celebration of the presence of God. As the Church used to say: Lex orandi, lex credendi, meaning in Latin, "the law of prayer is the law of belief". When the Church creates a liturgical experience that focuses more on man than God, is it any wonder that the people begin to think of man as God? In the Garden of Eden, the lie the serpent told to humanity was this. To disobey God was to become a god, and to become a god is to judge for yourselves, without God, what is good and what is evil. God's laws do not matter. What matters is your own judgement. So we see this unfolding in the Catholic Church, as we previously saw it unfold in the mainline Protestant churches. Man becomes God, and man creates his own morality, based upon his own judgement. We have seen this happen among the laity, many of whom no longer believe in the "real presents" in the Eucharist, but simultaneously believe homosexual "marriage" is permissible and should be embraced. God is denied, and man is exalted to the level of a god, judging for himself what is good and evil. God is left out of the process. What began in the laity has crawled its way up into the hierarchy of the Church. In the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, we have witnessed Catholic prelates call for a relaxation of laws pertaining to the reception of Holy Communion, so that what is already practised illegally in the Catholic Church, may now receive the blessing of the Catholic Church. This way the Holy Eucharist may be profaned even more regularly, and without the care or concern by those in charge. The community of the Church may finally focus entirely on itself, rather than the One whom they have supposedly gathered to worship.
At he heart of the moral crisis evolving at the Synod on the Family, is a deeper crisis related to the Holy Eucharist, and in particular its treatment in the modern Church. It is revealed in everything, from beliefs, to practises, to liturgy, to discipline. This is the Fourth Great Crisis in the Catholic Church. How long it will last depends entirely on the long-suffering and mercy of God Almighty. In the painting above is depicted a recreation of Jesus calming the storm at sea. Our Eucharistic Christ will calm this storm as well, but like the disciples before us, we must first wake him and ask. Perhaps the time has come for constant prayer vigils to be held at every tabernacle, in every parish, around the world.
Posted by Fr. Jeffery Fasching at 3:45 PM
Topics: Abraham, adoration, adversity, Apostolic, arrogance, Benediction, Bishop, Blessed Virgin Mary, Body of Christ, Holy Communion, Jesus Christ, kingdom
Originally posted on FullyChristian.Com, reprinted here by permission. Source: http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-fourth-great-crisis.html
THE CRISIS AND THE STORM
In ages past, the Catholic Church faced three great crises....
The First Great Crisis was the Arian Heresy, and it was by far the worst. It happened in the fourth century and lasted about sixty years. The crisis centred around the divinity of Jesus Christ, wherein a rogue priest, named Arius, challenged established Church doctrine that Jesus Christ is divine, and God exists in the form of Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Arius asserted that Jesus was merely a man, a great prophet, and the promised Messiah, but not God. Arius was the first one to come up with the concept of a "Bible" or Canon of Scripture, in which he hand-selected the books contained therein, all of them affirming his heretical views. This period saw the majority of the world's Christian bishops, priests and laity siding with Arius. The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople were held during this time, and in response the Church not only condemned Arius and his heresy, but also formulated the Nicene Creed and commissioned the work of compiling an authentic Christian Bible, particularly the New Testament, which happens to be the same one all Christians use today. The First Great Crisis of the Church came to an end with the dismantling of Arianism and the victory of the Catholic Church.
The Second Great Crisis in the Church came during the tenth century, in what some have called the "Obscure Century". This was a period when the papacy was corrupted by wicked families with great wealth and political power. During this time the papacy was drug through the mud, so to speak, with corrupt popes, nepotism, materialism, political ambitions, and so on. No official heresy was taught from the Chair of Peter, but the level of corruption and lack of discipline led many Catholics to be carried away by heretical doctrines anyway.
The Third Great Crisis in the Church was called the Occidental Schism (or "Western Schism"), which was in part caused by the exile of the papacy to Avignon in France. This led to confusion which ultimately culminated in the reign of three "popes" simultaneously, each contenting to be the one true authentic pope. The crisis was ended at the Council of Constance in 1414-1418, when two of the three "popes" agreed to resign for the greater good of the Church, the third was deposed by the council, and a new authentic pope was elected in their places.
Now we face the FOURTH GREAT CRISIS of the Catholic Church. These words are not my own. They come from Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary of Astana (Kazakhstan), who's interview can be read on Rorate Caeli blog. The Fourth Great Crisis in the Catholic Church can be summarised as the widespread abuse of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is manifested in the form of liturgical, doctrinal and pastoral abuse.
The seeds of this crisis began in the middle twentieth century, before the Second Vatican Council and shortly after World War II. It was at this time that the focus of leaders within the Catholic Church began to shift from God to man. The discipline of psychology was growing in popularity at the time, and many Church leaders started to embrace it. Along with that, new theologians were coming to the forefront that questioned what was previously established Church teaching. Into this mix the Second Vatican Council was called. Pope Benedict XVI, who was present at the Council as Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, in one of his final public addresses as pontiff some fifty years later, clarified the situation that existed at that time. (I blogged on this extensively here.) In summary, he said that "two councils" were going on simultaneously. The first was the "Council of the Fathers", or the authentic Second Vatican Council, which is what the bishops were actually discussing in Rome. The second was the "Council of the Media", which was a counterfeit council created by the mainstream news press, in which the documents of the Second Vatican Council were "reinterpreted" by the press, and then disseminated to the public with a remarkably Left-wing and Modernist spin that the Council Fathers never intended. This process has continued, more or less, for the last 50 years, to a point where we now live in a time when the popular media has more influence on Catholics than the bishops of the Church. What we have witnessed in the last half century is nothing short than a psychological coup d'état on the minds of faithful Catholics, wherein the authentic leadership of the Church was replaced by the counterfeit leadership of the mainstream press.
Immediately following the Second Vatican Council was the introduction of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. On the whole, the missal was a simplification of the Roman Liturgy, making room for the expansion of Lectionary readings, as well as greater liturgical participation by the faithful laity. This was all it was ever intended to do, and the Council Fathers, previously assembled in Rome, envisioned a future liturgy with greater public participation and more reading from the Sacred Scriptures. They also envisioned a future liturgy that looked remarkably similar to the Missal of Saint Pius V, celebrated by the Council Fathers at the Second Vatican Council. That was not to happen. Immediately, the counterfeit Council of the Media went into action in the 1970s, following the release of the new missal, reinterpreting the intention and purpose of the new liturgy. What was produced was a new Roman liturgy that scarcely looks anything like what the Second Vatican Council intended, resulting in a complete loss of the Latin language (a language the Council Fathers affirmed as liturgically necessary), the loss of Gregorian chant, and most profoundly, a watered-down presentation of the Eucharist wherein the faithful receive communion in the hand while standing, and the sacred tabernacle is literally pushed off to some remote corner of the parish chapel. In almost all celebrations of the new missal, the priest faces the people, and in those parishes where the tabernacle is set off to the side somewhere, it leaves the congregation with the visual impression that man is the centre of the liturgy not God.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), in his book Spirit of the Liturgy put it this way:
'In the very form of its places of divine worship, which we have just been considering, Christianity, speaking and thinking in a Semitic way, has laid down principles by which this question can be answered. Despite all the variations in practise that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the East is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again. Here both the fidelity to the gift already bestowed and the dynamism of going forward are given equal expression... Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practise of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priest and people got labelled as "celebrating towards the wall" or "turning your back on the people" and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable. And this alone explains why the meal – even in modern pictures – became the normative idea of liturgical celebration for Christians. In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest – the "presider," as they now prefer to call him – becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.... Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the "creative" planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, "make their own contribution." Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a "pre-determined pattern".... The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.'
THUD! And with that, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) summarised the prevailing direction of the Catholic Church in the modern age. The Council of the Media was so powerful that it affected the minds of some priests and bishops, reorienting them toward a new hierarchy, one in which the Zeitgeist of Modernism (the diabolical spirit of our age) reigns supreme.
Ratzinger characterised the fruit of this zeitgeist as the "tyranny of relativism" in which sin and depravity is tolerated in the name of "tolerance", while objection to sin and depravity is not tolerated in the name of "tolerance". So we see it played out in the Western governments of today. Easy "no-fault" divorce is commonplace, as is unmarried sexual cohabitation, artificial contraception and abortion on demand. A tide of homosexuality is rising at a rate unseen since the days of Pagan Rome, and once again in the name of "tolerance" this Zeitgeist of Modernism imposes a tyranny of relativism upon anyone who would dare speak out against it. Legal homosexual unions, mockingly called "marriages", have become the norm in Europe and Canada, while in the United States, one state after another falls to this tyranny in spite of the electoral will of the people.
In Christianity, the Zeitgeist of Modernism, with its tyranny of relativism, has wreaked havoc on the Protestant world. What was once just a couple dozen denominations and sects has exploded into literally hundreds, as conservative Protestants, faithful to traditional Christian morality, have fled their mainline denominations to create new splinter churches that maintain older Biblical standards. These "conservative" churches provide a refuge of peace for now, but the Zeitgeist of Modernism knows no denominational boundaries. Already the tyranny of relativism is knocking at the doors of many of these new conservative Protestant denominations. Some religious trend observers have forecasted their downfall within a matter of a decade or two.
In the Catholic Church, the Zeitgeist of Modernism, with its tyranny of relativism, has not fractured the unity of Rome -- yet -- but it has apparently infiltrated into the highest echelons of the Church hierarchy. Priests, bishops and even cardinals have been unable to evade its deep reaching tentacles. We have seen this unfold over decades with priests who refuse to teach their congregations the evils of: divorce, cohabitation, contraception, abortion, euthanasia and homosexual acts. We have seen this unfold over decades with bishops who refuse to enforce Canon 915 by making excommunication and interdiction almost unheard of in the modern Church. We have seen this unfold over decades with innumerable examples of liturgical innovation and abuse. We have seen this unfold over decades in the form of a clerical sex scandal, with the abuse of minors, that is unprecedented in the whole 2,000 years of Church history!
Now, after the election of Pope Francis, the mainstream press has put the Council of the Media into overdrive. If the Council of the Media gave us that diabolical "Spirit of Vatican II", which had nothing to do with the actual Vatican II, then what we are now witnessing is the equally diabolical "Spirit of Pope Francis" which has nothing to do with the real Pope Francis -- or so we can only hope. This artificial "Spirit of Pope Francis" is in every way heterodox. It embraces homosexual acts along with homosexual persons, as well as divorce itself along with divorced people. It makes no distinction between the act and the person. All is one in the same, with this "lovey-dovey, hippy-dippy" new pope, who refuses to judge anything, and views everything as permissible. Is the real Pope Francis anything like what the media has portrayed in its artificial "Spirit of Pope Francis"? We hope not, but only time will tell.
In the midst of this latest media push comes the Extraordinary Synod on the Family this October, to be followed by an Ordinary Synod on the Family in October of 2015. As we have seen unfold in the Extraordinary Synod, the sum of all fears has been realised. The Zeitgeist of Modernism has reached its tentacles deep into the Church hierarchy, and touched the highest ranking prelates with its tyranny of relativism. We have seen a statement released calling for changes in Church discipline, tone and language, related to the sins of: adultery, fornication, contraception and homosexuality. At the centre of this agenda is a push to permit the reception of Holy Communion (the Holy Eucharist) to those knowingly and obstinately in mortal sin, all with the blessing of the Catholic Church. Along with this comes the predictable "Synod of the Media" which is already making international headlines. As terrible as the Extraordinary Synod has become, the "Synod of the Media" will compound the situation, and make it so much worse, with the news media's reinterpretation and repackaging of the Synod's already warped message.
It remains to be seen what will come of this, and the first Synod report is just preliminary, but with this report, it has become painfully clear and obvious that Bishop Athanasius Schneider was right. With pinpoint accuracy he nailed it. We are now in the Fourth Great Crisis of the Catholic Church. The crisis revolves around the nature of the Holy Eucharist and abuses related to it. Surveys of Catholics all over the world reveal that the doctrine of the transubstantiation (literal presence of Christ) is no loner believed by a majority of Catholics, and this perhaps explains a lot. It is no wonder that the Eucharist is no longer centre in Catholic life, when the tabernacles are placed in some obscure corner of the parish church. It is no wonder when communicants are no longer asked to kneel in the presence of God, and receive Him enthroned on their tongue, but instead take Him in their own hands like a common cookie to be consumed as a casual snack. It is no wonder when the sacrament of confession is celebrated only occasionally, and rarely before mass, so that the faithful are not reminded of their need to confess their sins and prepare themselves for physical communion with God. It is no wonder when the liturgy becomes a "self-enclosed circle" wherein the priest, and not the sacrament, become the centre of attention. It is no wonder when the liturgy takes on an innovative carnival atmosphere, instead of a solemn and reverent celebration of the presence of God. As the Church used to say: Lex orandi, lex credendi, meaning in Latin, "the law of prayer is the law of belief". When the Church creates a liturgical experience that focuses more on man than God, is it any wonder that the people begin to think of man as God? In the Garden of Eden, the lie the serpent told to humanity was this. To disobey God was to become a god, and to become a god is to judge for yourselves, without God, what is good and what is evil. God's laws do not matter. What matters is your own judgement. So we see this unfolding in the Catholic Church, as we previously saw it unfold in the mainline Protestant churches. Man becomes God, and man creates his own morality, based upon his own judgement. We have seen this happen among the laity, many of whom no longer believe in the "real presents" in the Eucharist, but simultaneously believe homosexual "marriage" is permissible and should be embraced. God is denied, and man is exalted to the level of a god, judging for himself what is good and evil. God is left out of the process. What began in the laity has crawled its way up into the hierarchy of the Church. In the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, we have witnessed Catholic prelates call for a relaxation of laws pertaining to the reception of Holy Communion, so that what is already practised illegally in the Catholic Church, may now receive the blessing of the Catholic Church. This way the Holy Eucharist may be profaned even more regularly, and without the care or concern by those in charge. The community of the Church may finally focus entirely on itself, rather than the One whom they have supposedly gathered to worship.
At he heart of the moral crisis evolving at the Synod on the Family, is a deeper crisis related to the Holy Eucharist, and in particular its treatment in the modern Church. It is revealed in everything, from beliefs, to practises, to liturgy, to discipline. This is the Fourth Great Crisis in the Catholic Church. How long it will last depends entirely on the long-suffering and mercy of God Almighty. In the painting above is depicted a recreation of Jesus calming the storm at sea. Our Eucharistic Christ will calm this storm as well, but like the disciples before us, we must first wake him and ask. Perhaps the time has come for constant prayer vigils to be held at every tabernacle, in every parish, around the world.
Posted by Fr. Jeffery Fasching at 3:45 PM
Topics: Abraham, adoration, adversity, Apostolic, arrogance, Benediction, Bishop, Blessed Virgin Mary, Body of Christ, Holy Communion, Jesus Christ, kingdom
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Mary Conceived Without Sin
The Immaculate Conception
Mary -- Conceived without Sin
This is probably the most misunderstood doctrine among non-Catholics. Even some Catholics don't understand it. To be clear, let's define it. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a dogma, meaning that is is a required belief of all Catholics. In other words, if you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, then technically speaking, you're not really Catholic. It is defined as the belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself conceived without the stain of original sin.
Some Protestants contend that the doctrine is "unbiblical," that it "deifies Mary as a goddess," and "diminishes the role of Christ in the redemption of humanity." Such contention is unwarranted, and a little paranoid, as I'll demonstrate below.
The stain of original sin was defined by St. Augustine as the mark of sin inherited by all people from the time of their conception. This means that when the first humans (Adam and Eve) sinned against God, they did so before any of their children were born. Because of this, all children conceived after their sin (i.e. the whole human race), would inherent the stain of the sin they committed. The sin they committed was one of selfishness and rebellion against God. The stain of this sin penetrated all the way through their souls to the flesh itself -- staining it and corrupting it. Thus, all children born of their flesh would inherit this stain of original sin. Think of it as a hereditary trait. It is manifested in the form of pride, selfishness and rebellion. It creates in people the desire to commit various sins: lying, cheating, stealing, lust, rage, etc. It can be seen from the earliest ages of childhood. Every time a small child acts in a selfish way, or becomes rebellious toward his parents, he demonstrates the stain of original sin in his own mind and body. God designed human beings to be totally selfless, giving, and obedient creatures. But this does not describe the human race today. That's because the stain of original sin, inherited from our first parents (Adam and Eve), has twisted and corrupting what God has created. Instead of being selfless, we are selfish. Instead of being giving, we are greedy. Instead of being obedient, we are rebellious. Such is the nature of our fallen human race. Now many Protestants think of original sin as a type of depravity -- moral corruption or innate wickedness -- as if people are "evil" at their core. Catholics tend to see original sin more as deprivation than depravity -- meaning that original sin deprives human beings of what they need to be holy. The desire to be loving and selfless is there, but the deprivation of original sin makes that impossible to achieve on our own.
God cannot tolerate sin, and it must be dealt with. Before mankind can be restored to God, we must first be freed of the original sin that stains and deprives us. This is the reason why God sent Jesus Christ (God made flesh) into the world. His sacrificial death on the cross frees us from all sin, including original sin. But in order for this sacrifice to be atoning for the human race, it must come from a member of the human race. Only a perfect and spotless human being can undo the damage done by our first parents. A perfect duplicate (or copy) of a human being wouldn't be enough. This spotless sacrifice must be a direct descendant of the sinful human race, and he must be divine himself, so that he may atone for all human sins, not just the first one. Protestant Christians understand this concept very well, and teach it in their churches. They know that Jesus must atone for all the sins of the world, and they know he is fully human as well as fully divine. In this sense, Protestants are very "Catholic" in their thinking. What they often fail to consider is that the flesh of Jesus Christ must be truly descended from the sinful human race in order for Jesus to be truly "one of us." If God created a whole new body in Mary's womb from "the dust of the earth" so to speak, essentially a copy of humanity, totally separate from any sinful human genetics, he really wouldn't be human at all. He would be a whole new race, entirely separate from the human race, and completely disconnected from the rest of humanity. He might look like us, but he wouldn't really be "one of us." In order for Jesus Christ to truly be "one of us," he would have to be genetically linked to the human race, and since Jesus only has one biological parent, there is only one person through whom that link can be made. That person is the Blessed Virgin Mary.
When Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary's womb, at the time of the annunciation by the Angel Gabriel, his human genetic make-up came directly from her. True, his divine nature came directly from the Godhead, but his human nature came from Mary. So Mary is the human genetic link between Jesus Christ (God made flesh) and mankind. There is only one problem. If Mary's flesh was stained with original sin (like the rest of us), than Jesus would have inherited that same original sin nature. Yet the Scriptures clearly tell us that Jesus was without sin. So we have a theological problem. How could Jesus' flesh and blood be "without sin" if he inherited his human flesh and blood from Mary? Granted, he is God, so he can do whatever he wants, but he chose to do it a certain way that was fitting to his desire. Enter the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
From the earliest times, Christians have always believed that Mary was immaculate -- meaning perfect and without sin....
"He (Jesus) was the ark formed of incorruptible wood (Mary). For by this is signified that His tabernacle (body) was exempt from putridity and corruption (sin)." -- (Hippolytus, AD 235)
"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." -- (Origen, AD 244)
The idea here is that God miraculously preserved Mary from original sin from the time of her first existence (i.e. conception). The idea comes from the Holy Scripture in which the Angel Gabriel says to Mary: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." -- (Luke 1:28) The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It expresses a characteristic quality of Mary that is unique. The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent English versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favoured one." Mary was indeed a highly favoured daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that. The grace given to Mary is both permanent and unique. Kecharitomene is a perfect, passive, participle of the Greek word charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was given this grace in the past, but it has a continuing effect in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed did not begin at the angel’s visit. In fact, according to meaning the Greek word kecharitomene, it extended over her whole life, from conception onward. She was in a state of grace from the first moment of her existence (i.e. conception).
Now there is nothing particularly new about this concept. Biblically speaking, Mary wasn't the first person God fashioned in a perfect state of grace -- immaculate -- or without sin. The very first examples we have are Adam and Eve themselves. Both Adam and Eve were in a perfect state of grace at their "conception." Though the Scriptures tell us God fashioned them using a different method than normal procreation, it doesn't change the fact that they were made "without sin" (i.e. immaculate). So we could say the first immaculate conception happened in Eden when God formed the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve). In many ways, we could even consider the immaculate conception of Mary a "less dramatic miracle" (if we dare) because God still used the normal procreative processes when he fashioned her.
The question that arises is how? How would God fashion Mary "without sin" when both her parents were obviously stained by original sin, and they conceived her naturally? That is the mystery of the miracle. We can only conclude that God had already chosen Mary as Christ's mother, even from the first moment of her conception in the womb of her own mother. That being the case, the only reason why Mary was conceived without sin is because of Jesus Christ. Her body (flesh and blood) was redeemed retroactively, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that wouldn't happen until three decades later, because she was chosen to be the vessel through whom Jesus Christ (The Eternal Word) would enter this world as a human being.
Theologically this is very important, because Jesus received all of his human flesh and blood from Mary. That flesh and blood ought to be unspoiled and unstained by sin. Furthermore, modern science tells us that cells from the mother and child do exchange between them during pregnancy. Jesus and Mary literally shared flesh and blood, as all mothers and their babies do during normal human pregnancy. They were in a state of physical communion during that nine months of pregnancy. That means for Jesus to inherit and maintain a perfect body from his mother, without sin, his physical mother should be without sin as well. Likewise, if Mary was to be in a state of physical communion with her son Jesus, receiving his flesh and blood while he was in her womb, it would be necessary for her to be in a perfect state of grace -- immaculate. While God can do anything he wants, it is only fitting and proper for things to be done this way, and the Scriptures seem to support this with the angelic salutation "full of grace.”
So the doctrine of the immaculate conception does not "deify" Mary as many Protestants falsely believe. Nor does it diminish the role of Christ in the redemption of the human race. You can't even say it's "unbiblical" since the Greek word kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 practically defines the doctrine. Rather, it simply states that Mary was no different than the sinless Eve before the fall. Does this mean that Mary was better than Eve? No. Does this mean that Mary was greater or less than Eve? No. It means she was exactly the same as Eve physically, mentally and spiritually speaking. Does this mean that Mary could have sinned? YES! She most certainly could have followed the example of Eve and disobeyed the command of God. If she had, she would have suffered the same fate as Eve, and carried the stain of original sin herself. But the difference is that when the test was given, Mary chose to obey God whereas Eve did not. Eve's test was in the fruit of the tree. Mary's test was in the fruit of the womb. Eve failed her test, while Mary joyously passed hers. From the moment she responded to the angel, "Behold I am the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word" -- (Luke 1:38), she accepted the Lord's will for her, even though she knew it would bring her hardship. Because of that, Mary's purpose was fulfilled. God preserved her without sin, to be like Eve, so she could become the "New Eve," and bring forth the "New Adam" (Romans 5:12-21) who is Christ the Lord.
So now, the question of "why?" arises. Why did Mary choose to obey God, while Eve chose to disobey? Any answer we give is pure speculation, of course, but I think a fair speculation would be the Old Covenant itself. Mary was a Jew. She was raised her whole life to follow the Jewish laws. Tradition tells us she was educated as a child in the Jerusalem Temple, where she served as a consecrated virgin for the Lord. (Protoevangelium of James) Thus Mary had a grace that Eve was not given -- the Mosaic Law. Because of this, she had an understanding of God that was somewhat of a mystery to Eve. Beyond that, unlike Eve, Mary was able to personally witness the effects of original sin all around her. Eve learnt that lesson the hard way, having no prior experience with sin, she introduced original sin to the world with Adam her husband. Mary, in contrast, spent a lifetime toiling in the effects of that original sin, working for survival in a broken world filled with pain and suffering, even though she herself was sinless. This experience, combined with the Mosaic Law, certainly helped to give Mary the courage to say "yes" to a plan that would ultimately bring much more pain and suffering into her own life.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is rich in ancient Jewish symbolism. It is foreshadowed in the Old Testament with the Ark of the Covenant. Hebrews 9:4 tells us that the contents contained inside the Ark of the Covenant were; the stone tablets of the Law (the word of God), along with a jar of manna (bread from heaven) and Aaron's rod (a symbol of the holy priesthood). All of these are images foreshadowing Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1-4,14), the Bread from Heaven (John 6:31-65) and our eternal High Priest (Hebrews 4:14).
Now the Ark of the Covenant was consecrated to God and considered holy. It was not to be touched by sinful man under penalty of death, and God himself had no problem exacting this penalty, even when a man touched it in an attempt to prevent it from falling (2nd Samuel 6:6-7; 1st Chronicles 13:9-10). This Old Testament example is designed to illustrate that the ark, which carried the symbols of the Old Covenant, was just as holy as the Old Covenant itself.
Now as I said, the stone tablets, manna and rod were signs foreshadowing Jesus Christ. He is the New Covenant. Thus the "ark" that carried him in her womb is holy too, just as the ark that carried the symbols that foreshadowed him was holy. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant because she carried Jesus Christ in her womb. Jesus, who is the Word of God, the Bread of Life and our eternal High Priest, was carried for nine months inside the "ark" of Mary. She carried him in her arms and on her hip for another two years at least. If the ark of the Old Covenant was holy, than surely this ark of the New Covenant is even holier.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception points more to Christ than Mary. Though Mary is the object of the doctrine, she is not the subject of it. The subject is Christ, and it is his perfectly sinless body that is being addressed. Through Mary, Jesus inherited the "flesh and blood" of mankind. He bore the genetic code of the fallen human race, yet he did so with one modification, the stain of original sin was removed. The flesh he inherited was immaculate. That immaculate flesh was the gift of his mother -- Mary -- who herself received it as a gift from God. So Jesus really and truly was descended from Adam and Eve through Mary. He really and truly was "one of us," having the same ancestors and genetic code that originated from them. God rehabilitated the original, immaculate nature of humanity in Mary, but her sinlessness didn't help anybody but herself. She was the only beneficiary of this filling of grace (kecharitomene). Mary's sinlessness doesn't save anybody else. It doesn't save me, and it doesn't save you. All God did with the immaculate conception was reset the clock, so to speak, to give one person another chance. For the sake of humanity, and revealing himself in the Law of Moses, God gave one more human being, schooled in that law, a chance to say "yes" for humanity. Her "yes" brought forth the Messiah who would fulfil the Law of Moses, and effectively save the rest of us. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, is a doctrine that points entirely to Jesus Christ. Without him, the Immaculate Conception of Mary makes no logical sense.
In following Jesus Christ, we all become "immaculate" upon our baptism. This is the promise that is given to us. Granted, our bodies (and minds) remain damaged by sin, but this is a temporary condition. Those who are faithful, and endure to the end, not only get to look forward to an afterlife in heaven, but also a future resurrection, in which our recreated bodied will be like those of Jesus and Mary -- perfect and immaculate. In this life, the Christian is privileged to experience an immaculate soul upon the sacraments of baptism and reconciliation. In the next life, however, Christians will be privileged to experience an immaculate body as well.
Written by Shane Schaetzel, reposted by permission. Source: http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2014/11/mary-conceived-without-sin.html
Posted by Fr. Jeffery Fasching at 8:30 AM
Topics: Adam, Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ, Covenant, death, Eve, Evil, God, Jewish, law, loyalty, manna, miracle, Old Testament, Scripture, Sin, Suffering
Mary -- Conceived without Sin
This is probably the most misunderstood doctrine among non-Catholics. Even some Catholics don't understand it. To be clear, let's define it. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a dogma, meaning that is is a required belief of all Catholics. In other words, if you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, then technically speaking, you're not really Catholic. It is defined as the belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself conceived without the stain of original sin.
Some Protestants contend that the doctrine is "unbiblical," that it "deifies Mary as a goddess," and "diminishes the role of Christ in the redemption of humanity." Such contention is unwarranted, and a little paranoid, as I'll demonstrate below.
The stain of original sin was defined by St. Augustine as the mark of sin inherited by all people from the time of their conception. This means that when the first humans (Adam and Eve) sinned against God, they did so before any of their children were born. Because of this, all children conceived after their sin (i.e. the whole human race), would inherent the stain of the sin they committed. The sin they committed was one of selfishness and rebellion against God. The stain of this sin penetrated all the way through their souls to the flesh itself -- staining it and corrupting it. Thus, all children born of their flesh would inherit this stain of original sin. Think of it as a hereditary trait. It is manifested in the form of pride, selfishness and rebellion. It creates in people the desire to commit various sins: lying, cheating, stealing, lust, rage, etc. It can be seen from the earliest ages of childhood. Every time a small child acts in a selfish way, or becomes rebellious toward his parents, he demonstrates the stain of original sin in his own mind and body. God designed human beings to be totally selfless, giving, and obedient creatures. But this does not describe the human race today. That's because the stain of original sin, inherited from our first parents (Adam and Eve), has twisted and corrupting what God has created. Instead of being selfless, we are selfish. Instead of being giving, we are greedy. Instead of being obedient, we are rebellious. Such is the nature of our fallen human race. Now many Protestants think of original sin as a type of depravity -- moral corruption or innate wickedness -- as if people are "evil" at their core. Catholics tend to see original sin more as deprivation than depravity -- meaning that original sin deprives human beings of what they need to be holy. The desire to be loving and selfless is there, but the deprivation of original sin makes that impossible to achieve on our own.
God cannot tolerate sin, and it must be dealt with. Before mankind can be restored to God, we must first be freed of the original sin that stains and deprives us. This is the reason why God sent Jesus Christ (God made flesh) into the world. His sacrificial death on the cross frees us from all sin, including original sin. But in order for this sacrifice to be atoning for the human race, it must come from a member of the human race. Only a perfect and spotless human being can undo the damage done by our first parents. A perfect duplicate (or copy) of a human being wouldn't be enough. This spotless sacrifice must be a direct descendant of the sinful human race, and he must be divine himself, so that he may atone for all human sins, not just the first one. Protestant Christians understand this concept very well, and teach it in their churches. They know that Jesus must atone for all the sins of the world, and they know he is fully human as well as fully divine. In this sense, Protestants are very "Catholic" in their thinking. What they often fail to consider is that the flesh of Jesus Christ must be truly descended from the sinful human race in order for Jesus to be truly "one of us." If God created a whole new body in Mary's womb from "the dust of the earth" so to speak, essentially a copy of humanity, totally separate from any sinful human genetics, he really wouldn't be human at all. He would be a whole new race, entirely separate from the human race, and completely disconnected from the rest of humanity. He might look like us, but he wouldn't really be "one of us." In order for Jesus Christ to truly be "one of us," he would have to be genetically linked to the human race, and since Jesus only has one biological parent, there is only one person through whom that link can be made. That person is the Blessed Virgin Mary.
When Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary's womb, at the time of the annunciation by the Angel Gabriel, his human genetic make-up came directly from her. True, his divine nature came directly from the Godhead, but his human nature came from Mary. So Mary is the human genetic link between Jesus Christ (God made flesh) and mankind. There is only one problem. If Mary's flesh was stained with original sin (like the rest of us), than Jesus would have inherited that same original sin nature. Yet the Scriptures clearly tell us that Jesus was without sin. So we have a theological problem. How could Jesus' flesh and blood be "without sin" if he inherited his human flesh and blood from Mary? Granted, he is God, so he can do whatever he wants, but he chose to do it a certain way that was fitting to his desire. Enter the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
From the earliest times, Christians have always believed that Mary was immaculate -- meaning perfect and without sin....
"He (Jesus) was the ark formed of incorruptible wood (Mary). For by this is signified that His tabernacle (body) was exempt from putridity and corruption (sin)." -- (Hippolytus, AD 235)
"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." -- (Origen, AD 244)
The idea here is that God miraculously preserved Mary from original sin from the time of her first existence (i.e. conception). The idea comes from the Holy Scripture in which the Angel Gabriel says to Mary: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." -- (Luke 1:28) The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It expresses a characteristic quality of Mary that is unique. The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent English versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favoured one." Mary was indeed a highly favoured daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that. The grace given to Mary is both permanent and unique. Kecharitomene is a perfect, passive, participle of the Greek word charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was given this grace in the past, but it has a continuing effect in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed did not begin at the angel’s visit. In fact, according to meaning the Greek word kecharitomene, it extended over her whole life, from conception onward. She was in a state of grace from the first moment of her existence (i.e. conception).
Now there is nothing particularly new about this concept. Biblically speaking, Mary wasn't the first person God fashioned in a perfect state of grace -- immaculate -- or without sin. The very first examples we have are Adam and Eve themselves. Both Adam and Eve were in a perfect state of grace at their "conception." Though the Scriptures tell us God fashioned them using a different method than normal procreation, it doesn't change the fact that they were made "without sin" (i.e. immaculate). So we could say the first immaculate conception happened in Eden when God formed the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve). In many ways, we could even consider the immaculate conception of Mary a "less dramatic miracle" (if we dare) because God still used the normal procreative processes when he fashioned her.
The question that arises is how? How would God fashion Mary "without sin" when both her parents were obviously stained by original sin, and they conceived her naturally? That is the mystery of the miracle. We can only conclude that God had already chosen Mary as Christ's mother, even from the first moment of her conception in the womb of her own mother. That being the case, the only reason why Mary was conceived without sin is because of Jesus Christ. Her body (flesh and blood) was redeemed retroactively, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that wouldn't happen until three decades later, because she was chosen to be the vessel through whom Jesus Christ (The Eternal Word) would enter this world as a human being.
Theologically this is very important, because Jesus received all of his human flesh and blood from Mary. That flesh and blood ought to be unspoiled and unstained by sin. Furthermore, modern science tells us that cells from the mother and child do exchange between them during pregnancy. Jesus and Mary literally shared flesh and blood, as all mothers and their babies do during normal human pregnancy. They were in a state of physical communion during that nine months of pregnancy. That means for Jesus to inherit and maintain a perfect body from his mother, without sin, his physical mother should be without sin as well. Likewise, if Mary was to be in a state of physical communion with her son Jesus, receiving his flesh and blood while he was in her womb, it would be necessary for her to be in a perfect state of grace -- immaculate. While God can do anything he wants, it is only fitting and proper for things to be done this way, and the Scriptures seem to support this with the angelic salutation "full of grace.”
So the doctrine of the immaculate conception does not "deify" Mary as many Protestants falsely believe. Nor does it diminish the role of Christ in the redemption of the human race. You can't even say it's "unbiblical" since the Greek word kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 practically defines the doctrine. Rather, it simply states that Mary was no different than the sinless Eve before the fall. Does this mean that Mary was better than Eve? No. Does this mean that Mary was greater or less than Eve? No. It means she was exactly the same as Eve physically, mentally and spiritually speaking. Does this mean that Mary could have sinned? YES! She most certainly could have followed the example of Eve and disobeyed the command of God. If she had, she would have suffered the same fate as Eve, and carried the stain of original sin herself. But the difference is that when the test was given, Mary chose to obey God whereas Eve did not. Eve's test was in the fruit of the tree. Mary's test was in the fruit of the womb. Eve failed her test, while Mary joyously passed hers. From the moment she responded to the angel, "Behold I am the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word" -- (Luke 1:38), she accepted the Lord's will for her, even though she knew it would bring her hardship. Because of that, Mary's purpose was fulfilled. God preserved her without sin, to be like Eve, so she could become the "New Eve," and bring forth the "New Adam" (Romans 5:12-21) who is Christ the Lord.
So now, the question of "why?" arises. Why did Mary choose to obey God, while Eve chose to disobey? Any answer we give is pure speculation, of course, but I think a fair speculation would be the Old Covenant itself. Mary was a Jew. She was raised her whole life to follow the Jewish laws. Tradition tells us she was educated as a child in the Jerusalem Temple, where she served as a consecrated virgin for the Lord. (Protoevangelium of James) Thus Mary had a grace that Eve was not given -- the Mosaic Law. Because of this, she had an understanding of God that was somewhat of a mystery to Eve. Beyond that, unlike Eve, Mary was able to personally witness the effects of original sin all around her. Eve learnt that lesson the hard way, having no prior experience with sin, she introduced original sin to the world with Adam her husband. Mary, in contrast, spent a lifetime toiling in the effects of that original sin, working for survival in a broken world filled with pain and suffering, even though she herself was sinless. This experience, combined with the Mosaic Law, certainly helped to give Mary the courage to say "yes" to a plan that would ultimately bring much more pain and suffering into her own life.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is rich in ancient Jewish symbolism. It is foreshadowed in the Old Testament with the Ark of the Covenant. Hebrews 9:4 tells us that the contents contained inside the Ark of the Covenant were; the stone tablets of the Law (the word of God), along with a jar of manna (bread from heaven) and Aaron's rod (a symbol of the holy priesthood). All of these are images foreshadowing Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1-4,14), the Bread from Heaven (John 6:31-65) and our eternal High Priest (Hebrews 4:14).
Now the Ark of the Covenant was consecrated to God and considered holy. It was not to be touched by sinful man under penalty of death, and God himself had no problem exacting this penalty, even when a man touched it in an attempt to prevent it from falling (2nd Samuel 6:6-7; 1st Chronicles 13:9-10). This Old Testament example is designed to illustrate that the ark, which carried the symbols of the Old Covenant, was just as holy as the Old Covenant itself.
Now as I said, the stone tablets, manna and rod were signs foreshadowing Jesus Christ. He is the New Covenant. Thus the "ark" that carried him in her womb is holy too, just as the ark that carried the symbols that foreshadowed him was holy. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant because she carried Jesus Christ in her womb. Jesus, who is the Word of God, the Bread of Life and our eternal High Priest, was carried for nine months inside the "ark" of Mary. She carried him in her arms and on her hip for another two years at least. If the ark of the Old Covenant was holy, than surely this ark of the New Covenant is even holier.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception points more to Christ than Mary. Though Mary is the object of the doctrine, she is not the subject of it. The subject is Christ, and it is his perfectly sinless body that is being addressed. Through Mary, Jesus inherited the "flesh and blood" of mankind. He bore the genetic code of the fallen human race, yet he did so with one modification, the stain of original sin was removed. The flesh he inherited was immaculate. That immaculate flesh was the gift of his mother -- Mary -- who herself received it as a gift from God. So Jesus really and truly was descended from Adam and Eve through Mary. He really and truly was "one of us," having the same ancestors and genetic code that originated from them. God rehabilitated the original, immaculate nature of humanity in Mary, but her sinlessness didn't help anybody but herself. She was the only beneficiary of this filling of grace (kecharitomene). Mary's sinlessness doesn't save anybody else. It doesn't save me, and it doesn't save you. All God did with the immaculate conception was reset the clock, so to speak, to give one person another chance. For the sake of humanity, and revealing himself in the Law of Moses, God gave one more human being, schooled in that law, a chance to say "yes" for humanity. Her "yes" brought forth the Messiah who would fulfil the Law of Moses, and effectively save the rest of us. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, is a doctrine that points entirely to Jesus Christ. Without him, the Immaculate Conception of Mary makes no logical sense.
In following Jesus Christ, we all become "immaculate" upon our baptism. This is the promise that is given to us. Granted, our bodies (and minds) remain damaged by sin, but this is a temporary condition. Those who are faithful, and endure to the end, not only get to look forward to an afterlife in heaven, but also a future resurrection, in which our recreated bodied will be like those of Jesus and Mary -- perfect and immaculate. In this life, the Christian is privileged to experience an immaculate soul upon the sacraments of baptism and reconciliation. In the next life, however, Christians will be privileged to experience an immaculate body as well.
Written by Shane Schaetzel, reposted by permission. Source: http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2014/11/mary-conceived-without-sin.html
Posted by Fr. Jeffery Fasching at 8:30 AM
Topics: Adam, Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ, Covenant, death, Eve, Evil, God, Jewish, law, loyalty, manna, miracle, Old Testament, Scripture, Sin, Suffering
Why Latin?
The Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in the ancient and venerable language of the Catholic Church. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Church! The Latin Language gives a sense of mystery and a sense of the sacred. If we hear the language of Latin referred to as a “dead” language it is because it is no longer spoken as the vernacular language in any country today. But the Mass is offered in Latin precisely because Latin words do not change in meaning. Pope Pius XII explains: “The use of the Latin language is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective anecdote for any corruption of doctrinal truth."
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Bulletin 239
SAINT AGNES CATHEDRAL 533 South Jefferson Springfield, MO 65806
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
January 18, 2015
2nd Sunday after Epiphany
Epistle: Rom. 12: 6-16
Gospel: Jn. 2: 1-11
Mon 19 No Latin Mass
Tue 20 Saint Fabian, Pope & Sebastian, Martyrs
Wed 21 Saint Agnes * Virgin & Martyr
Thu 22 Ss. Vincent & Anastasius, Martyrs
Fri 23 Requiem Mass + Paul Shideler
The potluck dinner for January will be held on Sunday the 18th immediately following the 2:30pm Latin Mass.
Why Latin?
The Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in the ancient and venerable language of the Catholic Church. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Church! The Latin Language gives a sense of mystery and a sense of the sacred. If we hear the language of Latin referred to as a “dead” language it is because it is no longer spoken as the vernacular language in any country today. But the Mass is offered in Latin precisely because Latin words do not change in meaning. Pope Pius XII explains: “The use of the Latin language is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective anecdote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.”
The Blessed Virgin Mary possesses great power to obtain from God the graces we stand in need of. She is always ready to assist us in all our wants. The Blessed Virgin Mary's merit is so great that her prayers cannot fail to be heard. Since Mary is the Mother of God, her petitions take on the nature of a command. It is impossible that they cannot be heard. The intercession of Mary is all-powerful.
Mary's place in Heaven is such that she enjoys the vision of God. She knows our wants very clearly and always desires to assist us. Let us turn to her in a time when she in needed more than ever. Let us turn to Mary to combat the evil that runs rampant in our world! Let us turn to Mary to save a culture than has grown indifferent to the immense favors of her Son Jesus Christ!
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Jan. 24 – 25 - 3rd Sunday of the Year
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Gainesville and Ava – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Gainesville and Ava - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
January 18, 2015
2nd Sunday after Epiphany
Epistle: Rom. 12: 6-16
Gospel: Jn. 2: 1-11
Mon 19 No Latin Mass
Tue 20 Saint Fabian, Pope & Sebastian, Martyrs
Wed 21 Saint Agnes * Virgin & Martyr
Thu 22 Ss. Vincent & Anastasius, Martyrs
Fri 23 Requiem Mass + Paul Shideler
The potluck dinner for January will be held on Sunday the 18th immediately following the 2:30pm Latin Mass.
Why Latin?
The Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in the ancient and venerable language of the Catholic Church. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Church! The Latin Language gives a sense of mystery and a sense of the sacred. If we hear the language of Latin referred to as a “dead” language it is because it is no longer spoken as the vernacular language in any country today. But the Mass is offered in Latin precisely because Latin words do not change in meaning. Pope Pius XII explains: “The use of the Latin language is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective anecdote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.”
The Blessed Virgin Mary possesses great power to obtain from God the graces we stand in need of. She is always ready to assist us in all our wants. The Blessed Virgin Mary's merit is so great that her prayers cannot fail to be heard. Since Mary is the Mother of God, her petitions take on the nature of a command. It is impossible that they cannot be heard. The intercession of Mary is all-powerful.
Mary's place in Heaven is such that she enjoys the vision of God. She knows our wants very clearly and always desires to assist us. Let us turn to her in a time when she in needed more than ever. Let us turn to Mary to combat the evil that runs rampant in our world! Let us turn to Mary to save a culture than has grown indifferent to the immense favors of her Son Jesus Christ!
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Jan. 24 – 25 - 3rd Sunday of the Year
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Gainesville and Ava – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Gainesville and Ava - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Bulletin 238
SAINT AGNES CATHEDRAL 533 South Jefferson Springfield, MO 65806
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
January 11, 2015
The Holy Family
Epistle: Col. 3: 12-17
Gospel: Luke 2: 42-52
Mon 12 No Latin Mass
Tue 13 Commemoration of the Baptism of the Lord
Wed 14 Saint Hilary-Bishop, Confessor & Doctor
Thu 15 Saint Paul, the First Hermit-Confessor
Fri 16 Saint Marcellus I-Pope & Martyr
The potluck dinner for January will be held on Sunday the 18th immediately following the 2:30pm Latin Mass.
Why Latin?
The Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in the ancient and venerable language of the Catholic Church. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Church! The Latin Language gives a sense of mystery and a sense of the sacred. If we hear the language of Latin referred to as a “dead” language it is because it is no longer spoken as the vernacular language in any country today. But the Mass is offered in Latin precisely because Latin words do not change in meaning. Pope Pius XII explains: “The use of the Latin language is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective anecdote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.”
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Jan. 10 – 11 – Baptism of the Lord
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Jan. 24 – 25 - 3rd Sunday of the Year
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Gainesville, Ava – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Gainesville, Ava – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
January 11, 2015
The Holy Family
Epistle: Col. 3: 12-17
Gospel: Luke 2: 42-52
Mon 12 No Latin Mass
Tue 13 Commemoration of the Baptism of the Lord
Wed 14 Saint Hilary-Bishop, Confessor & Doctor
Thu 15 Saint Paul, the First Hermit-Confessor
Fri 16 Saint Marcellus I-Pope & Martyr
The potluck dinner for January will be held on Sunday the 18th immediately following the 2:30pm Latin Mass.
Why Latin?
The Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in the ancient and venerable language of the Catholic Church. Yes, Latin is the official language of the Church! The Latin Language gives a sense of mystery and a sense of the sacred. If we hear the language of Latin referred to as a “dead” language it is because it is no longer spoken as the vernacular language in any country today. But the Mass is offered in Latin precisely because Latin words do not change in meaning. Pope Pius XII explains: “The use of the Latin language is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective anecdote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.”
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Jan. 10 – 11 – Baptism of the Lord
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Jan. 24 – 25 - 3rd Sunday of the Year
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Gainesville, Ava – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Gainesville, Ava – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Bulletin 237
SAINT AGNES CATHEDRAL 533 South Jefferson Springfield, MO 65806
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
January 4, 2015
Holy Name of Jesus
Epistle: Acts 4: 8-12
Gospel: Luke 2: 21
Mon 5 No Latin Mass
Tue 6 Epiphany of the Lord
Wed 7 Feria after Epiphany
Thu 8 Feria after Epiphany
Fri 9 Feria after Epiphany
Wisdom literature links the Holy Name of Jesus to oil. Oil gives light. Oil feeds fire. Oil nourishes the flesh and soothes pain. It is food and healing. Oil anoints the body. So also is the Holy Name of Jesus. Saint Ambrose says to preach it is to give light. To think of it is to feed the soul. To call on it is to win grace and unction.
The preaching of the Name of Jesus is what has made the light of faith shine so brightly throughout the world! It is in the light of the Holy Name of Jesus that God has called us into his marvelous light. Saint Paul says we were once in darkness, but now we have found the light of life!
According to Saint Paul we must now live honorably as in the daylight. The Holy Name of Jesus allows us to cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light. What infinite power! The Name of Christ came like lightning out of the mouth of Peter to give bodily strength to the feet of the lame man. The Name of Christ has cleared the sight of countless blind souls!
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Jan. 10 – 11 – Baptism of the Lord
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Jan. 24 – 25 - 3rd Sunday of the Year
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Gainesville, Ava – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Gainesville, Ava – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS (LATIN)
CELEBRANT: Father Jeffery Fasching
January 4, 2015
Holy Name of Jesus
Epistle: Acts 4: 8-12
Gospel: Luke 2: 21
Mon 5 No Latin Mass
Tue 6 Epiphany of the Lord
Wed 7 Feria after Epiphany
Thu 8 Feria after Epiphany
Fri 9 Feria after Epiphany
Wisdom literature links the Holy Name of Jesus to oil. Oil gives light. Oil feeds fire. Oil nourishes the flesh and soothes pain. It is food and healing. Oil anoints the body. So also is the Holy Name of Jesus. Saint Ambrose says to preach it is to give light. To think of it is to feed the soul. To call on it is to win grace and unction.
The preaching of the Name of Jesus is what has made the light of faith shine so brightly throughout the world! It is in the light of the Holy Name of Jesus that God has called us into his marvelous light. Saint Paul says we were once in darkness, but now we have found the light of life!
According to Saint Paul we must now live honorably as in the daylight. The Holy Name of Jesus allows us to cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light. What infinite power! The Name of Christ came like lightning out of the mouth of Peter to give bodily strength to the feet of the lame man. The Name of Christ has cleared the sight of countless blind souls!
Father Fasching's Mass Travel Schedule – Christmas & Easter
Jan. 10 – 11 – Baptism of the Lord
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Jan. 24 – 25 - 3rd Sunday of the Year
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 7- 8 - 5th - Sunday of the Year
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
Feb. 18 - Ash Wednesday -
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
Feb. 21 – 22 - 1st Sunday of Lent
Gainesville, Ava – Fr. Fasching
Mar. 7 – 8 - 3rd Sunday of Lent
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove - Fr. Fasching
Mar. 21 – 22 - 5th Sunday of Lent
Gainesville, Ava – Fr. Fasching
Apr. 18 - 19 - 3rd Sunday of Easter
Cabool, Mansfield, Mt. Grove – Fr. Fasching
May 2 – 3 - 5th Sunday of Easter
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
May 16 – 17 - 7th Sunday of Easter - Confirmation - Ava
Cabool - Sat.4:00 PM - Fr. Fasching
Mt. Grove, Sun. 10:30 AM – Fr. Fasching
May30 – 31 - Trinity Sunday
Gainesville, Ava - Fr. Fasching
In Christo Jesu et
Maria Immaculata,
Father Jeff Fasching
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)