I don't understand Traditionalism and its hurting my marriage

[NFP1Kate]

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.

Actually…yes, he changed when he went to a sedevacantist Church. He sort of hovers over the idea of leaving communion with Rome. Because of me, he has stayed in Communion and we have tried to find a way to make it bearable for him. Last week, for the first time, we attended an SSPX Chapel. It was against my better judgment, the parish priest told me to obey the Pope and wait until they are in full Communion. I don’t understand Latin, and with 3 kids, I have a lot of trouble following it.

I found myself enjoying the SSPX Chapel more than the other Latin services I have been to. I can’t explain why, I really don’t know how they are different.

 

[LilyM]

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)

Yes. CITH is an indult rather than the norm. So the EF for many years was also an indult and not the norm - does the fact that the EF was an indult make it in any way interior? Not a bit. Neither does indult status mean CITH is in any way inferior. Kindly do NOT refer to the indult status of any practice as meaning it is somehow inferior.

And to say it was originally invented by Protestants is to be totally ignorant of the history of the practice. Pope Benedict pointed out when asked that it was in fact a practice dating to the earliest centuries of the Church - being described at length (and not disapproved of) by
the 4th century Doctor of the Church St Cyril of Jerusalem among others. It is anything but a Protestant invention.

 

[moon1234]

The Mass itself is NOT different. What you are experiencing with SSPX is internal legal/doctrinal issues. The externalities (Mass, Sacraments, etc.) are all the same between SSPX and the officially recognized groups like FSSP, ICRSS, the local diocesan priest who says the traditional Mass.

The SSPX are doing everything as it was in 1962 just like any other local parish. The SSPX however want Rome to explain HOW changes in VII are in harmony with what the Church taught up to 1962. Rome is resistant and does NOT want to have this type of discussion. It calls into question the documents and teachings from VII and forces Rome to explain how all of the changes are NOT a break with tradition.

The SSPX is a very nice group of religious and lay people. There are some wierd members who spout of nonsense or say silly things, but those people exist in all groups. We all have the wierd parish or two our own local areas filled with colorful people.

If your husband is entertaining sede thoughts (i.e. the curren pope is invalid) then he doesn’t know where he is at spiritually right now. Once you step away from the Novus Ordo and commit to the EF then you start reading and get really distressed at all of the changes. You really question everything. If you don’t have a local parish that says the EF Mass then try and find a close traditional parish (FSSP, ICRSS, etc.) if they don’t exist then go to the SSPX chapel.

Just keep in mind that confessions at an SSPX chapel will be invalid unless your in danger of dying. A priest needs supplied permission from his local ordinary to perform some normal sacraments. Marraige, Pennence are the two biggies. The Eucharist would be vaild and Rome has said so as this does not require supplied jurisdiction. So if you go to the SSPX chapel, make sure you go to confession at your normal parish. Your already married so no worries there.

The SSPX WILL be normalized and I feel it will be very soon. Once that happens they will most likey be given a structure in the Church such a personal prelature which would mean they report directly to the Pope and can operate in any diocese world wide without need of permission from the local Bishop. Similar to Opus Dei.

If you feel home at the SSPX chapel and can be happy there, then I think your husband will as well. Going to the Latin Mass would be no different that going to a Novus Ordo Mass in another vernacular language (Spanish, etc.). Once you figure out what is happening where you will be fine. A hand missal with all of the daily readings will fill in all of the prayers for you. After a few months you will be an old pro and the latin will start to make more sense. You will pickup things like:

Almost all prayers start as follows:

Dominus Vobiscum: The Lord be with you
Et cum spiritu tuo: And with your Spirit
Oremus: Let us Pray

Lots of those in Mass. During the Canon of the Mass you will hear Father say a few things out Loud like:

Nobis quoque peccatoribus: Deign to give also to us Your sinner servants
Per Omnia Secula Seculorum: through all the ages of ages (you normally see this in English as “World without end”. Doesn’t the true latin translation convey much more meaning?)

Use the word queues to find where you are at. You will get it as time goes on. You will find that as you LEARN latin, the meanings of the prayers will hold more meaning for you. At least they do for me.

 

[moon1234]

Yes. CITH is an indult rather than the norm. So the EF for many years was also an indult and not the norm - does the fact that the EF was an indult make it in any way interior? Not a bit. Neither does indult status mean CITH is in any way inferior. Kindly do NOT refer to the indult status of any practice as meaning it is somehow inferior.

And to say it was originally invented by Protestants is to be totally ignorant of the history of the practice. Pope Benedict pointed out when asked that it was in fact a practice dating to the earliest centuries of the Church - being described at length (and not disapproved of) by
the 4th century Doctor of the Church St Cyril of Jerusalem among others. It is anything but a Protestant invention.

CITH was used by Calvin to deny the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist during the protestant reformation. That is why Rome forbid communion in the hand because they recogized, that at that time and through history, that when communion in the hand was permitted a loss of belief in the true presence followed. This is commonly seen in parishs today. People walk away with the host, they put it in their pocket, etc. There is NO excuse for this. If you believe Christ is truely King and Lord, then WHY would you CHOOSE to Potentially cause profanition to his body when you could choose to receive your Lord and God kneeling and on the tongue, with a paton under your chin to catch even the smallest particle of his sacred species?

YOU may not do any of these actions, but just last week during First Communion at my sons parish (where we were not attending as he had already had his FC at the EF Mass earlier in his life), someone came up for commion, took the host, put it in their pocket and started walking back to the pew. Father had to stop the person, demand they eithe give back or consume the sacred species immediatly. CITH permitted this profination of the blessed sacrament. The NORM would have prevented it entirely. (As reported to me BY those attending the Mass)

THAT is why CITH is an INDULT, an allowed deviation for the NORMAL practice which is kneeling and on the tongue. An Indult is an EXCEPTION from the normal practice. It is not EQUAL to the normal practice or it would not be called an INDULT.

Read more here from a BISHOP on this same topic: tldm.org/News17/BishopAthanasiusSchneiderSaysCommunionInTheHandIsACalvinistNovelty.htm

sspx.org/miscellaneous/communion_in_the_hand/communion_in_the_hand_and_other_similiar_frauds-michael_davies.pdf

Pope Benedict clarified that the EF was NEVER an indult Mass. It was always permitted for every Priest to say it without permission. This was stated specifically in Summorum Pontificum. Those who tried to supress the EF, illegally, made up all of this stuff about the EF being an Indult Mass and requiring permission, etc. It was not true.

 

[Melchior_1]

CITH was used by Calvin to deny the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist during the protestant reformation. That is why Rome forbid communion in the hand because they recogized, that at that time and through history, that when communion in the hand was permitted a loss of belief in the true presence followed. ** This is commonly seen in parishs today**. People walk away with the host, they put it in their pocket, etc. There is NO excuse for this. If you believe Christ is truely King and Lord, then WHY would you CHOOSE to Potentially cause profanition to his body when you could choose to receive your Lord and God kneeling and on the tongue, with a paton under your chin to catch even the smallest particle of his sacred species?

YOU may not do any of these actions, but just last week during First Communion at my sons parish (where we were not attending as he had already had his FC at the EF Mass earlier in his life), someone came up for commion, took the host, put it in their pocket and started walking back to the pew. Father had to stop the person, demand they eithe give back or consume the sacred species immediatly. CITH permitted this profination of the blessed sacrament. The NORM would have prevented it entirely. (As reported to me BY those attending the Mass)

THAT is why CITH is an INDULT, an allowed deviation for the NORMAL practice which is kneeling and on the tongue. An Indult is an EXCEPTION from the normal practice. It is not EQUAL to the normal practice or it would not be called an INDULT.

Read more here from a BISHOP on this same topic: tldm.org/News17/BishopAthanasiusSchneiderSaysCommunionInTheHandIsACalvinistNovelty.htm

sspx.org/miscellaneous/communion_in_the_hand/communion_in_the_hand_and_other_similiar_frauds-michael_davies.pdf

Pope Benedict clarified that the EF was NEVER an indult Mass. It was always permitted for every Priest to say it without permission. This was stated specifically in Summorum Pontificum. Those who tried to supress the EF, illegally, made up all of this stuff about the EF being an Indult Mass and requiring permission, etc. It was not true.

This is all fine and dandy, with the exception that some Catholic religious orders received Communion in the hand for quite some time before Calvin.

Regarding the bolded, “commonly”? Really? I’d like some quantitative evidence that his is widespread and happening everywhere.

 

[paperwight66]

Regarding the bolded, “commonly”? Really? I’d like some quantitative evidence that his is widespread and happening everywhere.

Yes, indeed, a bold claim to be sure. How would anyone KNOW what parishes believed, unless they had taken a survey? And not that survey that used to be frequently quoted on these boards but thankfully not so much now, in which the answer ‘no’ to the question ‘Do you believe Jesus to be physically present in the Blessed Sacrament’ was interpreted as not believing in the Real Presence, whereas , in fact, it is perfectly correct.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Pope Benedict clarified that the EF was NEVER an indult Mass. It was always permitted for every Priest to say it without permission. This was stated specifically in Summorum Pontificum. Those who tried to supress the EF, illegally, made up all of this stuff about the EF being an Indult Mass and requiring permission, etc. It was not true.

I just wanted to emphasize this. The 1962 Missal was NEVER abrogated.

• PAX

 

[RyanBlack]

CITH permitted this profination of the blessed sacrament. The NORM would have prevented it entirely. (As reported to me BY those attending the Mass)

I’m Eastern Catholic, so this issue really isn’t my fight, but what you have stated is simply not true. There is certainly the possibility of profanation of the Eucharist when it is administered on the tongue. If I were so inclined as to profane the body of our Lord by placing the host in my pocket, or whatever, I can still do so, even if I receive on the tongue.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

Continue being faithful to the teachings and practices of the Church.

The Catholic Church is the same one began by Christ …and the Mass is of course certainly valid (no need for him to wonder there). He can choose to attend a Mass that is using the 1962 Missal-- the “extraordinary form” (in a Catholic Church that is in Full Communion with the Catholic Church) or attend the “ordinary form” as you do.

As for SSPX --they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church at this time. They are though in talks with the Church presently.

 

[moon1234]

Full communion is loaded term and does not convey the situation properly. They believe what the Church believes. They have an irregular legal status in the Church. That is it. That legal status causes them to not be able to perform certain sacraments legally.

Even the Vatican has stated one can validly fulfill their Sunday obligation there and even contribute monetarily. The only statement Rome made was that a person can not hold a sedevacantist belief as their reason for attending the SSPX chapel.

If her husband is starting to entertain a sedevacantist attitude and the SSPX will prevent that, then I would be ALL for him attending the SSPX chapel. We can assume there is no local EF Masses in a diocese Church, which is sad, so we should do what we can to keep her and her husband within the Church. The SSPX IS within the Church, but they have an irregular legal situation.

 

[Bookcat]

Even the Vatican has stated one can validly fulfill their Sunday obligation there and even contribute monetarily.

I am afraid I am not up on such. I leave such a matter to the Church of course (though I would want to see information provided directly from the Holy See on this matter not just what someone over in the SSPX may say…and I would not seek to receive the sacraments there).

And I would say what I noted is true. They are not in full communion --if they were there would be no news in recent days of discussions…

But I would note too that we need to not “derail” any thread.

 

[thewanderer]

Actually…yes, he changed when he went to a sedevacantist Church. He sort of hovers over the idea of leaving communion with Rome. Because of me, he has stayed in Communion and we have tried to find a way to make it bearable for him. Last week, for the first time, we attended an SSPX Chapel. It was against my better judgment, the parish priest told me to obey the Pope and wait until they are in full Communion. I don’t understand Latin, and with 3 kids, I have a lot of trouble following it.

I found myself enjoying the SSPX Chapel more than the other Latin services I have been to. I can’t explain why, I really don’t know how they are different.

As to the differences between the latin masses… you mentioned that you went to an OF in latin. You are aware that the difference between the EF and the OF is much more than that of language? That the original language of the OF is latin but it has also been officially translated into other languages and has received permission to be celebrated in the vernacular? maybe it would be helpful for you to look into some of the differences between the OF and the EF so that you can understand them both better and begin to learn why people prefer the ones they do.

Also, especially since your husband has been influenced by sedevacantists I want to again emphasize the importance of reducing their influence over him. Some years ago I almost forsake the OF as invalid because of the influence of some of my friends, thankfully I was never influenced to the point of sedevacantism, but trust me, I have come to realize the effect that the influence of others can play in this. Maybe you can get in touch with an FSSP priest? even if only through email? If you can get your husband in touch with those who appreciate the EF mass and other pre-vatican II traditions who are completely in union with Rome, perhaps it will help him overcome the influence of those who are attempting to seperate him from the church. Also, such a priest might be able to help you understand the differences and why some people prefer the EF which might make it easier for you to adjust to the EF.

 

[floresco]

Actually…yes, he changed when he went to a sedevacantist Church. He sort of hovers over the idea of leaving communion with Rome. Because of me, he has stayed in Communion and we have tried to find a way to make it bearable for him. Last week, for the first time, we attended an SSPX Chapel. It was against my better judgment, the parish priest told me to obey the Pope and wait until they are in full Communion. I don’t understand Latin, and with 3 kids, I have a lot of trouble following it.

I found myself enjoying the SSPX Chapel more than the other Latin services I have been to. I can’t explain why, I really don’t know how they are different.

No wonder you are so troubled, if your husband has been under sedevacantist influence. If going to the SSPX is what it takes to keep him away from them, then you are fully justified in attending Mass at an SSPX chapel. Whatever concern there is due to their canonical irregularity, this is a far lesser “evil” than the blatantly schismatic teaching of sedevacantists.

And I see no reason to think attending an SSPX chapel is evil. While your parish priest is right that we should obey the pope, I am not aware of the pope saying that we should wait until they are regularized to begin attending. Everything that I have seen from the Vatican on this says that we can attend. That is what my parish priest said when I asked him.

If you enjoyed the Mass there, then that is a further reason to go there. The more comfortable you are, the less risk there is of you building up resentment against your husband for putting you in the situation. Attending the SSPX chapel sounds like it has the potential to be a solution for you. I’ll pray for you.

I don’t think you need to be too concerned about having difficulty following the EF Mass. That will improve with time as you get used to it. There are online resources if you want to speed up the process of learning about it, too. For example, I found sanctamissa.org/en/ very helpful when I was starting out attending the Latin Mass.

 

[nute]

Unfortunately, the ritual of the mass is largely a development of man and not of God where people who call themselves traditionalists are kinda out there in my opinion. The breaking of the bread and distribution of the body and blood of Christ is fixed. The priest must wash his hands the way Pilot did and I’m sure I’m forgetting a few other things that are not changable. The original mass was probably in Greek, not Latin. Much of the new testament may also have been written initially in Greek.

I don’t particularly like Holy Rosary, I feel that holding hands during the Our Father for example is a good thing. Yes we have a private relationship with God, but we also
have a relationship with the human community that is worshipping God with us.

The mass is the mass, though there are some forms which are not approved by Rome that one should steer clear of. The ultimate authority on ritual in the Archdoicese of Portland in Oregon is Archbishop John Vlazny, but he will be retiring soon.

A lot of folks around the time of Vatican II were lost in the confusion. Vatican II made a lot of important changes, but any time you change something there are people who will go after that which has to remain the same.

I don’t see Holy Rosary as being a problem parish, but I personally am not particularly comfortable there. A husband who expects his wife to worship in a manner that makes her uncomfortable is a husband who may have other issues that need to be addressed by going to counseling with her.

I pray that people aren’t lost with the recent changes to the common archdiocesan rite of the mass. The Lord be with you, and with your spirit is one of the changes for example. The retraining of oneself is hard enough, though the meaning of the changes could be a problem too.

Any time a person rejects the common archdiocesan rite of the mass and says I am a traditionalist, that gives me pause. There were plenty of reasons for the changes of Vatican II. English was introduced to increase understanding during the mass. Communion under both forms was introduced because the blood of Christ is equal to the body of Christ and we should receive both. The altar was turned around to highlight the fact that we are a Catholic community who worship God together instead of a bunch of confused illiterates watching a priest from the back side worship God alone.

I personally don’t understand the veil which has been taken to an extreme by some muslims making me incredibly uncomfortable. This is an optional thing for women that should never be expected of them let alone enforced. That which Rome does not require is off the table as far as I’m concerned, unless Rome is okay with it and you want to do it.

Don’t be too hung up on ritual or what other people see, wash your face when you fast and pray in private. Don’t be like the pharisees and the sadduces who put too much on people and got too comfortable with their position. In enforcing the letter of the law, they missed the point of it.

 

[adopted_heir]

Up front, I haven’t read every single reply, but did a quick scan. But I’d like to weigh on on the OP directly. I am a convert to Catholicism, and then again a convert to tradition. A lot of her apprehensions are totally valid–traditional Catholicism is a culture shock. It’s archaic and foreign to everything that’s normal to us. It’s prayed in a dead language and takes a conscious effort to get used to. I wasn’t born speaking Latin, but after a few weeks (see? not even months) I was able to reference the missal on my own and know exactly where the priest was in the Mass. The rules and practices are different even from more mainstream OF Catholicism.

What I would suggest to OP is to ask her husband first, and some knowledgeable acquaintances of his (not just any weirdo that falls off the hayrack) what it is about Tradition specifically that draws them. Ask what the importance of the veil is. (It’s not just to give kids something to tug on.) Perhaps find someone who came to tradition intentionally rather than being born into it, because, at least for me, it was a conscious and concerted decision. There are strong theological issues that are at play, and very good reason for people to have strong opinions. Find out what makes your husband so sure this is the right place to be.

As a wife (and I’m sure this is going to bring a lot of flack) remember that he is the head of the household and it is your job to be his first mate, under his authority. That doesn’t mean you can’t ask him questions or even challenge him, but do it graciously and give him a chance to lead. He might be trying to lead you somewhere beautiful. If he wants you to wear a veil, I’d say try it–is it worth the tension of a fight over a piece of lace? Ask him why a veil is important (apply to whatever topic of tradition is being discussed).

As far as feeling judged, I still feel that, but I know that it’s just my perception. They really don’t pay attention to you in Mass–no one is there studying how quickly you genuflect or cross yourself at the right spots, and at any given moment, twenty-six other women are readjusting their veils or grabbing them back from toddlers. One of the great things about the Latin Mass is that people are there intentionally and are spending their time preparing their hearts to meet God, not thinking about socializing or who looks like they are hungover. Some traditional communities get a kind of fishbowl mentality and can get judgy, but that’s their problem. Do your best, not to impress others at Mass, but because that’s what you can offer as part of the Sacrifice. There’s no newbie-radar, no written exam before you’re allowed into the herd. No one will see you flipping bewilderedly through your missal and point and scream “OUTSIDER!!” At least, it hasn’t happened to me yet, and believe me, I give plenty of opportunity to be spotted.

God bless you. Hang in there and give it a chance. I’m biased, of course, but I think given the chance, the beauty and timeless nature of the Mass that formed the saints throughout history can speak to anyone’s heart.

 

[bklk1]

There is a veil that is oval in shape and smaller than the traditional mantilla. You can see one here

saintfrancisveils.com/home/sfv/page_49/saint_francis_first_holy_communion_veils_chapel.html

This style gives good coverage but is not down on the shoulders and in harms way when you are holding little ones.

Your letter and situation sounds so familiar. I’m the one that prefers the Latin and am lucky to have a parish within 45 minute drive. My husband and grandson prefer the much much more secular, feel good, mass at our local church. When I go with them I usually end up feeling cheated. The church that has the Latin also has a NO on Saturday. Twice a month my we all go to “my” NO mass. Funny thing is happening, at least with hubby, he is starting to SEE the difference between our local church and the much more traditional church that I prefer AND has begun to talk about ‘my’ church as ‘his’ church =) He doesn’t really understand the draw of the Latin but goes with me when he can and admits he feels totally different after a Latin Mass.

Anyway! Back to the veil and the women of the traditional parish. Veil first. The family that I usually end up sitting behind has 5 beautiful little boys. One or the other of the little ones is always in mom’s arms and her veil in the past was always slipping, sliding, pulled, etc. Then one Sunday she showed up with a veil like the one in the photos and POOF! her veil situation was resolved =D The boys can love on mom as much as they want and her veil is up out of harms way. In truth I kind of miss the sideways, falling, twisted veil … it was sweet to see and represented hugs and kisses and not embarassment.

The other thing I wanted to suggest. Find out if the traditional parish has after worship fellowship. If they do … GO. Let your kids mingle with their kids and you mingle with the women. You will find them welcoming. The Traditional Mass will grow on you. If they don’t have booklets in the pews which you can follow, look on Ebay for a nice older missal. I love my St. Andrews Missal. Once you have the missal you can follow along easily and you will learn a LOT about what is happening by reading the little asides that are in the missal. Soon, you will love the traditional mass, it will sooth you and leave you feeling FILLED up, replete, and you will long for the next Sunday to hurry up and get here!

Children. I was terrified of having a huge family. Now, looking back I wish I’d had a dozen. Stop fearing and let God do what He does best which is LOVE you. God loves you, He know’s your heart, He understands your limits and you just have to trust Him.

FAITH, remember you need to have faith.

 

[adopted_heir]

Find out if the trad parish has a library, or someone with a personal library they’re willing to lend out. And I would just insert that Latin Novus Ordo is not the same as the Latin Extraordinary Form (formerly the ‘indult’ Mass). This is where your missal will come in handy–you can read the English on the right and you’ll pick up quickly the differences. Some are small, negligible really, and some are the ones which have caused a lot of strife and debate.

 

[nute]

I don’t see how mass at an archdiocesan parish is secular while a “Latin” mass is sectarian. The mass is the mass, in it’s approved forms that is There are invalid
forms of the Latin mass, one connected to LeFebrve I believe, that should be avoided.

I don’t appreciate being called secular because I don’t go to a Latin mass all the time.

I guess the purpose of the veil is to show respect to Christ, but then why don’t men wear something similar??? Sisters wearing veils makes sense, but I don’t get mothers wearing them. If the woman who started this thread doesn’t want to wear a veil, that is legitimate and she should not be encouraged to simply cave in on it. What isn’t said could be a problem, why should she and her husband be at an impasse? Counseling seems to be needed by a priest possibly or perhaps by a psychiatrist.

Yes, the man or the wife needs to be the dominant decision maker when there are ties, but abusing this power is totally unacceptable. I think that this authority should be passed back and forth between husband and wife from time to time.

In a Catholic marriage, there is no requirement to go to a Latin mass and no such requirement should be imposed by either partner. Yes, Latin language masses can be beautiful, but so too are roman rite masses.

As far as bringing children up, they benefit from hearing the mass in a language that they understand. Children also benefit from a 1950ish decision to put first Eucharist before Confirmation.

The church makes important changes from time to time and is very careful about stating what is required of the faithful, which should be respected.

“We are a traditional family,” can be and sometimes is a veil for control. If the husband is too controlling, the marriage is in trouble. The mass is not a vehicle for abuse.

 

[agnes_therese]

Regarding the bolded, “commonly”? Really? I’d like some quantitative evidence that his is widespread and happening everywhere.

You’re not the only one. I don’t see it in my parish, nor in another I attend fairly regularly.

 

[ancailindeas]

What your husband may be discovering is the loss of the reverance with the OF that is pervasive in MOST churchs. The rubrics of the EF do not allow abuses and the music is almost always very traditional and beautiful.

In a man’s mind this will lead him to wonder why this was ever changed. If he is like me, he will start reading about how these changes to the Mass came about. He will see that the OF that we have today is NOT what the council asked for. He will read that Latin is to be taught to all Catholics, that Gregorian Chant is to have pride of place, etc. These are all in the official council documents, yet ignored in most places.

This will naturally lead to suspicion that the local OF priests are allowing abuses, not conforming to the official documents of the council, etc. This will then lead to more research, etc.

In the end, he may as I have, find that the EF offers a rich history that is almost 100% free of abuses, etc. It will offer him the ability to worship in the same way that most of the saints through history worshiped. In essence it will seem MORE Catholic than the OF.

I have to admit that I grew up a cradle Catholic attending the OF. As I became an adult I started researching my faith more. I wanted to KNOW more about my faith. When I learned that there was a different Mass that was radically different from what I knew, I was very curious. As I learned more I too began to question why changes were made. It seemed change was made for no real reason other than to conform to the times.

I ultimately switched to attending the EF exclusively. My wife and I were married by the ICRSS (EF community erected by Pope JPII) in 1999.

To this day I have problems attending the NO. Do I think it is invalid? No. Do I think it lacks the solemnity and beauty of the EF, most definitly yes. A good example came from my 5 year old daughter. All she has experienced her whole life is EF Mass. My wife wound up needing to go to an OF Mass where the Bishop and the Vicar General were attending. It was Ash wednesday and she could not make the 6:30am EF Mass at our normal parish (Diocese parish).

My wife sat in the back as she had 5 kids with. When the Bishop came out for the procession she announced in an audible voice “Mom, there is Bishop Morlino” then she said “But who is that man with him?” My wife, a little embarassed whispered “That is the Priest.” My daughter responded “He doesn’t look like a Priest, he is not wearing any vestments and doesn’t look like a Catholic Priest.” She then said “Are you sure this Church is Catholic? Where is Jesus in his tabernacle and where is the altar?” My daughter is used to seeing the tabernacle on the high altar. This Church had only the table altar and the tabernacle was no where to be seen. I assume it was in some side capel or somewhere else.

Needless to say both the Bishop and the vicar turned to look at my wife. It had to have made an impression on the Bishop if a five year old can recognize aspects of her faith that were missing from common view.

These concepts are very important to most men. Our brains work differently than women. Most men like logical order and find that in the EF.

Maybe none of this helped, but maybe it provides a clue as to why he feels the way he does. Maybe seeing reform of the reform and talk about more reform is just bewildering to him and he wants a shelter from the chaos and has found that in the EF.

In any event, PLEASE don’t feel judged at an EF parish. I never judge anyone when I see a new face. I am just happy they are there.

For goodness sake man women too have logical minds and also seek order and consistency. Perhaps you are confusing somebody who may not yet have all the information regarding the Latin Mass that you or I have but please dont use this argument ‘most men are logical’ and your brains work differently it really is very poor reasoning. God gave men and women intellects (as opposed to simply ‘brains’) in order to ascertain the truth and make reasonable judgments. Please try to be more reasonable. I say this not to be unkind but simply to wake you up a small bit.
Regards