I don't understand Traditionalism and its hurting my marriage

[floresco]

Sorry, but the veil at mass is not a moral obligation from the natural law, is not a moral duty from the natural law and is not a canonical duty.

I am puzzled that you responded to the original poster with this comment, since she said nothing about this. I am concerned that you appear to be ignoring her feelings and problems to go off on a tangent of your own.

 

[paperwight66]

I I did, of course, also tell him that when the Pope celebrates Mass, you cannot touch communion

• PAX

That’s not true. I’ve been to a Mass celebrated by a Pope, and there was no problem over CITH.

It’s only those who receive directly from the Pope who have to receive COTT, and that’s to avoid anyone taking the Host as a souvenir, and also to impress upon those watching, esp. on television, the holiness of the occasion.

The Pope, as has been said many times, does not have a problem with CITH. He said this himself , in hs book’ ‘The Light of the World’, and also that he has both given and received this way himself.

 

[thewanderer]

I am puzzled that you responded to the original poster with this comment, since she said nothing about this. I am concerned that you appear to be ignoring her feelings and problems to go off on a tangent of your own.

He might also be worried that her husband might try to force practices on her that are not required. He did comment on the fact that nfp1kate said that her husband wants them to live like traditionalists. There are reasons for veiling, bu it really is a personal practice an shouldn’t be forced on anyone.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

That’s not true. I’ve been to a Mass celebrated by a Pope, and there was no problem over CITH.

It’s only those who receive directly from the Pope who have to receive COTT, and that’s to avoid anyone taking the Host as a souvenir, and also to impress upon those watching, esp. on television, the holiness of the occasion.

The Pope, as has been said many times, does not have a problem with CITH. He said this himself , in hs book’ ‘The Light of the World’, and also that he has both given and received this way himself.

I think you know what I meant… receiving from the Pope.

• PAX

 

[floresco]

He might also be worried that her husband might try to force practices on her that are not required. He did comment on the fact that nfp1kate said that her husband wants them to live like traditionalists. There are reasons for veiling, bu it really is a personal practice an shouldn’t be forced on anyone.

Kate was expressing concerns about traditionalists having large families which is how I took the comment about living like traditionalists. I saw nothing to indicate that veiling was an issue for her. (Nor was there any indication of her husband forcing her to do things.) A post about veiling, even if making correct statements about it, did not seem appropriate. She seems quite troubled by her situation and I think it is important to be sensitive to her feelings and concerns.

 

[moon1234]

I think the point is that you made it appear as though you did not correct your Childs
misunderstanding that receiving CITH is wrong. This has nothing to do with bringing your child exclusively to the EF, it’s about allowing him to believe certain things are required when they actually aren’t. It’s possible to still encourage and teach a child to do things one way without letting him believe that anything else is wrong.

What you need to understand is that CITH IS an indult, an exception from norm. If ANY particle of the host falls to the floor, etc, by receiving in the hand and is then walked on, it is considered profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. I ALWAYS encourage my children to receving kneeling and on the tongue. In fact the VATICAN has stated that during the extrodinary form of Mass it is NOT ALLOWED to distribute communion in the hand. If a communicant presents hands at the EF the priest is to DENY them communion and ask them to present their tongue. This was LAW at the time of the 1962 missal and since the Pope has stated that all laws in force during 1962 (what is in the missal) must be followed. Innovations that came after 1962 are not allowed. This is one of the great attractions for people who are adherants to the EF. We no longer need to worry about altar girls, CITH, Lay people distributing communion, etc. All of those things are banned.

This is not my opinion, but direct response from the vatican as this issue has been a problem.

Personally I pray every day for the abolition of communion in the hand. It was originally done by the protestants as a rebuke of the dogma of the true presence. The fact that it is an INDULT and not normative for the Roman Church (the US Bishops try to make it normative here, but it is still an indult according to Rome and not the standard for the Latin Rite church)

 

[maryjk]

I brought it up as an example of how someone learns just by watching without formal instruction. Perhaps it was a poor or inflammatory example on my part; I apologize. And to complete the story, I also told my son that at this type of Mass people are allowed to touch communion because of special permission granted by the Pope. ** I did, of course**, also tell him that when the Pope celebrates Mass, you cannot touch communion

• PAX

I think you know what I meant… receiving from the Pope.

• PAX

I am sure that I know exactly what you meant. And yes, it was a poor and inflammatory example. But somehow I think it was meant to be.

Your example illustrates the problems the OP is having. She prefers the OF, and feels judged because of it.

 

[thewanderer]

What you need to understand is that CITH IS an indult, an exception from norm. If ANY particle of the host falls to the floor, etc, by receiving in the hand and is then walked on, it is considered profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. I ALWAYS encourage my children to receving kneeling and on the tongue. In fact the VATICAN has stated that during the extrodinary form of Mass it is NOT ALLOWED to distribute communion in the hand. If a communicant presents hands at the EF the priest is to DENY them communion and ask them to present their tongue. This was LAW at the time of the 1962 missal and since the Pope has stated that all laws in force during 1962 (what is in the missal) must be followed. Innovations that came after 1962 are not allowed. This is one of the great attractions for people who are adherants to the EF. We no longer need to worry about altar girls, CITH, Lay people distributing communion, etc. All of those things are banned.

This is not my opinion, but direct response from the vatican as this issue has been a problem.

Personally I pray every day for the abolition of communion in the hand. It was originally done by the protestants as a rebuke of the dogma of the true presence. The fact that it is an INDULT and not normative for the Roman Church (the US Bishops try to make it normative here, but it is still an indult according to Rome and not the standard for the Latin Rite church)

Please bring this discussion elsewhere, it has nothing to do with the OP

 

[thewanderer]

I am sure that I know exactly what you meant. And yes, it was a poor and inflammatory example. But somehow I think it was meant to be.

Your example illustrates the problems the OP is having. She prefers the OF, and feels judged because of it.

Why assume he meant it to be inflammatory? He actually seemed quite non-judgmental about it,once he realized what people were objecting to. If this is the kind of ‘judgement’ the OP is running into, then she should make an effort to figure out peoples real motivations and realize that not everything she thinks is a ‘judgement’ actually is. Don’t get me wrong, I have personally me some quite judgmental traditionalists, and it’s really really irritating, but they are not all so.

 

[moon1234]

I don’t think I even know how to phrase this question. I am Catholic, always have been, and raised in a post Vatican II Church.

My husband became a Traditionalist 3 months after we were married and it has been very difficult to understand and reconcile this change in him.

I am very conservative and I follow Church teaching as closely as I know how to. My husband doesn’t like going to Mass at our Parish, he sometimes wonders if it is valid, and he wants to go to the Latin Mass exclusively and live like those people do. I don’t understand how I am doing anything wrong if I am following our Church and doctrines.

I have been reading that the SSPX community might be in full communion soon. I don’t have any idea what that means for us. I have read that Archbishop Lefevbre abandoned the Church, and taught that the devil penetrated the officials and the faithful should only go to his Church. How is that not the same thing Martin Luther did??

This was not something that Archbishop Lefevbre said, rather is is something that Pope Paul VI said during one of homilies after VII.

I think you need to read the history of the SSPX (if that is where you are attending with your husband. Find out first). They started out a fraternity with Vatican approval. The way it works is that most societies who wish canonical recognition (permission to exist) are allowed on a trial basis for some time. During/after that time Rome visits and reviews them to see how they are doing.

What happened was that a few prelates who were visting the seminary at Econe, during the trial period, did not like what they saw. Mostly that the seminarians were learing the traditional Mass.

The prelates recommended to Rome that the SSPX NOT be approved as a fraternity and that the who place be shutdown. There was no reason for this. The prelates that visited wanted the abolition of the traditional Mass and they say the SSPX seminary as a direct threat to the new mass.

Archbishop Lefevbre continued with the seminary against Rome’s wishes. Rome was happy to officially sanction Archbishop Lefevbre and remove any status he had in the Church. He was still a Bishop, but now with no mission in the Church. Archbishop Lefevbre saw his seminary and those young men who had spent many years of their lives preparing as the last vestige of traditional catholocism. He continued to ordain new Priests, but he was an old man.

Rome assumed that once he died the SSPX would slowly die as no Bishop would ordain priests in the traditional form once he was dead. The fly in the ointment came when Archbishop Lefevbre consecrated four new, young bishops. Rome was very against this as it would allow the SSPX to grow and continue after his death. Any Bishop, once a Bishop, has the power to erect new Bishops as long as proper form, matter and intention are present. The fact that he ordained new Bishops without papal approval meant the ordinations were illegal (illicit), but not invalid.

The Pope then stated that these new Bishops had excommunicated themselves by their actions. This was what Pope Benedict XVI lifted a few years back. The Pope then went on to state that the Traditional Mass had NEVER been supressed and it was always allowed to celebrated without any type of permission from the local Bishop. Summorum Pontificum went further and stated that the Pope wishes that EVERY parish in the word offer a traditional Mass where at least a few (1 or two) people desire it.

So that is where we are at today. The Vatican has stated a Catholic can validly fulfill his Sunday obligation at the SSPX Mass. They have stated that the Mass they celebrate is not invalid, etc. I would look for FSSP, ICRSS or just a diocesean priest who says the Extrodinary Form to attend.

You can even ask your parish priest to say the Extrodinary form. He MUST oblige you according to Summorum Pontificum. It is NOT optional for local priest he must either learn the Extrodinary form or find someone to say it for him. This would allow you to attend your local parish AND have the extrodinary form.

 

[moon1234]

Please bring this discussion elsewhere, it has nothing to do with the OP

You brought it up. I just responded.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You can even ask your parish priest to say the Extrodinary form. He MUST oblige you according to Summorum Pontificum. It is NOT optional for local priest he must either learn the Extrodinary form or find someone to say it for him. This would allow you to attend your local parish AND have the extrodinary form.

This is untrue. There is no MUST involved.
Here is the text of SP. Article 5 states the following-

Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

I see a SHOULD there, not a MUST.

The OP is confused enough, I really do not think you are helping.

 

[tradcathusa]

Confusion over communion in the hand and received standind etc. This forum is on traditional Catholicism, In a traditional parish Universae Ecclesia issued a year ago settles all this:

Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Discipline

1. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.
2. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal9, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.
3. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.
4. With regard to the disciplinary norms connected to celebration, the ecclesiastical discipline contained in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 applies.
5. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

The Ecclesia Dei Commission issued protcols on all these questions, at a traditional mass it is unlawful to have altar girls, laymen reading the epistle,communioon in the hand and all the other things that take place at a novus ordo mass. At a traditional mass you follow what was done as established in 1962. I have a letter from Ecclesia Dei stating this very fact. Hope this helps, God Bless

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I am sure that I know exactly what you meant. And yes, it was a poor and inflammatory example. But somehow I think it was meant to be.

Your example illustrates the problems the OP is having. She prefers the OF, and feels judged because of it.

I didn’t mean it to be anything but an illustration of how children (and adults) pick up ideas from the way sacraments are celebrated. There’s no need to assume I’m being malicious now, is there? And I’m not sure how my story about my son can be translated into judging the OP for preferring the OF. But if that’s the way it came out, I apologize, as that was not my intent at all.

• PAX

 

[Lamafacaja]

I don’t think I even know how to phrase this question. I am Catholic, always have been, and raised in a post Vatican II Church.

My husband became a Traditionalist 3 months after we were married and it has been very difficult to understand and reconcile this change in him.

I am very conservative and I follow Church teaching as closely as I know how to. My husband doesn’t like going to Mass at our Parish, he sometimes wonders if it is valid, and he wants to go to the Latin Mass exclusively and live like those people do. I don’t understand how I am doing anything wrong if I am following our Church and doctrines.

I have been reading that the SSPX community might be in full communion soon. I don’t have any idea what that means for us. I have read that Archbishop Lefevbre abandoned the Church, and taught that the devil penetrated the officials and the faithful should only go to his Church. How is that not the same thing Martin Luther did??

I agree with Floresco. She and I are in the same position. My husband prefers the OF, too. I like the EF. You’re married to a Catholic, bottom line. Don’t let your differences cause trouble in your marriage!!!

If neither of you can make the move to the different form, then you’ll either have to take turns alternating at the different forms every other Sunday, or else you both go to your prefered Masses every Sunday. You do what you need to do, and be good to each other! Whatever else, don’t fight over this.

 

[OraLabora]

I agree with Floresco. She and I are in the same position. My husband prefers the OF, too. I like the EF. You’re married to a Catholic, bottom line. Don’t let your differences cause trouble in your marriage!!!

Indeed. My wife is Anglican. It was rock-and-roll at first but now we’ve learned to get along, spiritually-speaking, by focusing precisely on what we do hold in common. I should think that an EF+OF couple have more in common than we do, yet we manage to make it work and work very well.

On most Sundays, we each attend our own specific church. On high occasions like Easter and Christmas, we try to attend each other’s services. For instance last Christmas, I attended the 4 pm Christmas eve service with my wife and she came to midnight Mass with me (no, we don’t take communion outside our own respective services!). At Easter I couldn’t attend the Easter Vigil this year so I went to my own Easter Sunday Mass and she to hers, but we attended the Good Friday service together at the monastery to which I am affiliated. On occasion when I’ve gone to a Saturday evening service at which the choir I’m in sings, I’ll go to her church on Sunday, with her.

We should be more accommodating and loving, and less rigid in accepting each others’ differences. Surely two Catholics can find some grounds for compromise!!!

 

[maryjk]

Confusion over communion in the hand and received standind etc. This forum is on traditional Catholicism, In a traditional parish Universae Ecclesia issued a year ago settles all this:

So now the Traditional Catholicism forum is ONLY to discuss the EF Mass? Someone should notify the mods. Because this is what they say.

The following list is a sample of good areas to discuss under the heading, “Traditional Catholicism”. It’s not exhaustive; but it’s a place to start.

Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy
Church History
Classics of Western Spirituality
Classics in Western Theology
Customs
Church writings
The Fathers of the Church
The Desert Fathers & Mothers
The great schools of Western spirituality
The stories of the saints
Western religious orders and religious congregations

So say nothing about the fact that the thread is about someone that prefers the OF, but her husband prefers the EF. It seems that most of the advise is for her to learn to like the EF.

 

[moon1234]

I think what you are seeing is people trying to explain why her husband is attracted to the EF and with re-assurances that people are not going to judge her. This is then attacked by people who prefer the OF and choose to shoot down the reasons we prefer it.

This is why people think the “Traditional Catholocism” forum is about the Extrodinary form of Mass and the way things were done before the “New Order” of Mass came about. The original poster must have thought that as well or she would have posted in a different part of the forum about the Extrodinary Form of the Mass.

 

[Lamafacaja]

Indeed. My wife is Anglican. It was rock-and-roll at first but now we’ve learned to get along, spiritually-speaking, by focusing precisely on what we do hold in common. I should think that an EF+OF couple have more in common than we do, yet we manage to make it work and work very well.

On most Sundays, we each attend our own specific church. On high occasions like Easter and Christmas, we try to attend each other’s services. For instance last Christmas, I attended the 4 pm Christmas eve service with my wife and she came to midnight Mass with me (no, we don’t take communion outside our own respective services!). At Easter I couldn’t attend the Easter Vigil this year so I went to my own Easter Sunday Mass and she to hers, but we attended the Good Friday service together at the monastery to which I am affiliated. On occasion when I’ve gone to a Saturday evening service at which the choir I’m in sings, I’ll go to her church on Sunday, with her.

We should be more accommodating and loving, and less rigid in accepting each others’ differences. Surely two Catholics can find some grounds for compromise!!!

Yes, The major feasts like Christmas and Easter need to be discussed in great detail, because that’s when expectations run highest! Each spouse needs to give and take a little here.

 

[BenedictusFidem]

I don’t think I even know how to phrase this question. I am Catholic, always have been, and raised in a post Vatican II Church.

My husband became a Traditionalist 3 months after we were married and it has been very difficult to understand and reconcile this change in him.

I am very conservative and I follow Church teaching as closely as I know how to. My husband doesn’t like going to Mass at our Parish, he sometimes wonders if it is valid, and he wants to go to the Latin Mass exclusively and live like those people do. I don’t understand how I am doing anything wrong if I am following our Church and doctrines.

I have been reading that the SSPX community might be in full communion soon. I don’t have any idea what that means for us. I have read that Archbishop Lefevbre abandoned the Church, and taught that the devil penetrated the officials and the faithful should only go to his Church. How is that not the same thing Martin Luther did??

Greetings.

I don’t understand how it could be difficult reconciling this change? Unless he’s sedevacantist, it’s a change for the better! It’s difficult to understand exactly your situation because you don’t give many detailes. Does he attend SSPX? Does he attend FSSP? Or is he a sedevacantist?

You say your husband doesn’t like going to the local Novus Ordo (I’m presuming). There is nothing wrong with that.

As for the SSPX, there have been recent developments where the SSPX might soon be ‘regularized’ (officially recognised in the Church establishment). The SSPX is fully Catholic, and is, and never was, in schism. Rome has confirmed that. Archbishop Lefevbre was a very holy man and did what he thought was right for the Church at that current time period. There is nothing wrong with going to the SSPX’s Masses.

Through Jesus and Mary,

BenedictusFidem.