L
Lamafacaja
Guest
Not everyone is as smart as you and your children.
- Status
Not everyone is as smart as you and your children.
O
Onegin
Guest
The red Missals are pretty helpful in following along with the basic structure of the Mass because they have the pictures (which I found really helpful!) so that you can look at what the Priest is doing and know where you are in the Mass by looking in the Missal. If all else fails, bring a friend along who is familiar with the TLM so they can point to where you are in the Missal. I had my friends doing that for me with the red missals … I was no Einstein when it came to the TLM. 
What initially confused me the most was sung Masses where there would be chant overlapping the prayers, so I wasn’t sure where I was, especially during the Canon and some of the longer silent portions.
It takes a little time to catch on, and after a while, you’ll start recognizing the actions of the Priest, and immediately know where you are in the Mass.
What initially confused me the most was sung Masses where there would be chant overlapping the prayers, so I wasn’t sure where I was, especially during the Canon and some of the longer silent portions.
It takes a little time to catch on, and after a while, you’ll start recognizing the actions of the Priest, and immediately know where you are in the Mass.
M
malphono
Guest
Not to be critical, but the OP did not receive communion from an Episcopal priest. At the time, the man was a validly and licitly ordained deacon of Holy Mother Church. Whether the Mass was Solemn and whether he was functioning liturgically in the capacity of deacon is unclear, but in any case, a deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. So, even if he was simply assisting with communion, he was functioning within the norms of HMC.
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
Since I was the one that mentioned this, I will respond as well.
I did not mean to imply that the SSPX advocates sedevacantism os holds it as a tenet, only that when I compare the statements of the Bishops and those in leadership positions to those of your more average priest, or the laity who assist at SSPX chapels, the Leadership seems to be very clear in the support of the Papacy and the Church, while there are in certain, somewhat rare, instances cases of lower down members being not quite so clear. Just as in the Catholic Church as a whole there is a wide spectrum of people, there are also a wide spectrum in the SSPX. Some appear very near to being one with the Church, others appear to be somewhat separated, but see reconciliation as possible (I would put the leadership here), and some that see the only possibility as the Church as a whole shifting towards their interpretation of the SSPX positions.
Again. I realize that the SSPX, as a community do not advocate sedevacantism, and that they do recognize the Popes as legitimate.
I simply meant to say that the on the ground members (like the one the OP encountered) are not always so positioned. And from this spawns the distrust and dislike of groups like the FSSP
L
Lormar
Guest
What is the SSPX “personally” interpreting?
M
MikeLurie
Guest
No, he didn’t consecrate the Host. I should have clarified that in my original post. He distributed the communion.
But I still had an issue with it.
And thanks very much to all who have taken the time so far to address my concerns. It’s very gracious of you to take the time to talk to the MANY items I inquired about.
Please keep them coming.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
<<<<< Not everyone is as smart as you and your children. >>>>
Mal: Well if you can read english at a third grade level and you possess a St Josephs Missal you can follow along at Latin Mass and know whats going on. To me its an extremely weak argument to intimate that Latin Mass is only for trhose who speak Latin fluently. And i dont consider reading at a Third Grade level as overly “smart” Do you?
Mal: Well if you can read english at a third grade level and you possess a St Josephs Missal you can follow along at Latin Mass and know whats going on. To me its an extremely weak argument to intimate that Latin Mass is only for trhose who speak Latin fluently. And i dont consider reading at a Third Grade level as overly “smart” Do you?
L
Lamafacaja
Guest
Ah, okay thanks. Somehow I missed that.
L
Lamafacaja
Guest
I don’t think the op was saying that. I think he was asking that. And no, as I tried to explain in the other post, it’s not just for those who speak Latin.
Hey, what’s the big deal? I’m only trying to help this guy. If someone stops you for driving directions do you tell them they ought to be able to figure it out from a map?
As Onegin said, “The red Missals are pretty helpful in following along with the basic structure of the Mass because they have the pictures (which I found really helpful!) so that you can look at what the Priest is doing and know where you are in the Mass by looking in the Missal.”
I think that trying to figure out just where the priest is in the liturgy can be a big problem for newbies to the TLM.
M
MikeLurie
Guest
First of all, I asked a question about the number of people that attend Latin Mass who speak fluent Latin. For all I knew, it was a large majority… it was a legitimate question. For somebody throwing around flippant remarks about how a 3rd grader can follow Latin, you might want to check your own English comprehension skills.
Secondly, in your zeal to respond so charitably to the question, you missed the point about phonetics, emphasis on syllables and chanting as a roadblock to following the guide book with ease.
Could I follow the basic flow of the Mass without drooling on myself? Yeah, I’m pretty sure I can match wits with Malleus Jr. Boy Genius. I was once qualified to operate every working system on a United States Submarine including the reactor, so I’m fairly certain I could make you look like the town dunce if I wanted to…
But I do want to thank you for one thing. In one short paragraph, you’ve continued to cement what I have already known and continue to confirm about the schismatic group of sedavacantists you belong to.
L
Lamafacaja
Guest
Mike, like any other group not all SSPX members are bad. 
By your posts anyone can tell that you’re an intelligent, articulate person, btw.
By your posts anyone can tell that you’re an intelligent, articulate person, btw.
D
Diak
Guest
No, it is definitely true, and a careful examination of the SSPX’s history will quickly reveal this. The openly sedevacantist Society of St. Pius V arose from nine priests within the SSPX. Frs. Dolan and Sanborn (later consecrated bishops) broke from the SSPV and Fr. Kelly to form the Catholic Restoration group. Fr. Sanborn was the first rector of the SSPX Seminary in Ridgefield, Connecticut and was previously the rector of the SSPX House of Studies in Armada, Michigan. Fr. Dolan founded many of the SSPX Mass centers during the late 70s and early 80s (I’ve heard at least 30 were attributed to him), and Fr. Cekada, another sedevacantist priest, was also on the faculty at both Armada and Ridgefield SSPX seminaries.
M
malphono
Guest
I’m not sparring for an argument, but I personally knew Daniel Dolan in the 70s. The little I can say here is that, while he may have been a bit rigid, he was certainly not a sede at the point when he was establishing chapels on behalf of the SSPX. In other words, despite the fact that he ultimately set-off on the sede route, his association with the establishment of any chapel(s) for the SSPX is really not evidence of any sede taint within the SSPX. I have no idea about either of the other two names.
Let me add here that I have never been to an SSPX (much less a sede) chapel in my life nor do I have plans to visit one.
D
Diak
Guest
That may be, but the record stands for itself with regard to not only his being a former SSPX priest and now a leading sedevacantist bishop. The majority of the sedevacantist movement in the US can directly be linked to former SSPX priests, with three of them (Kelly, Dolan and Sanborn) now sedevacantist bishops.
My wife formerly attended Fr. Dolan’s school in Cincinnati, and according to her while she was there he admitted to having “doubts” regarding the validity of the standing Popes even while he was with the SSPX. He may certainly have kept those to himself.
My wife formerly attended Fr. Dolan’s school in Cincinnati, and according to her while she was there he admitted to having “doubts” regarding the validity of the standing Popes even while he was with the SSPX. He may certainly have kept those to himself.
O
Onegin
Guest
I think the argument that the SSPX “steers” people towards sedevacantism is comparable to arguing that extremely liberal parishes “steer” people towards the womenpriest movement.
You are always going to get some people who will want to jump off the deep end in one direction or another. People will do what they do. It is the responsibility of the Priest to make sure that such viewpoints (be they sede or extreme liberal) are not tolerated or fostered within the parish.
To the best of my knowledge, the SSPX is not tolerant of sedevacantism. They have been known to be very strict in expelling Priests who persist in sede views. Laypeople are harder to control and where you have a TLM, chances are you are going to find someone who leans sede. This is unavoidable, and I think it would be unfair to blame the layperson’s viewpoint on the Society.
The more appropriate question might be whether Traditionalism encourages sympathy towards the sedevacantist position. Does liberal Catholicism encourage a sympathy towards women’s ordination?
You are always going to get some people who will want to jump off the deep end in one direction or another. People will do what they do. It is the responsibility of the Priest to make sure that such viewpoints (be they sede or extreme liberal) are not tolerated or fostered within the parish.
To the best of my knowledge, the SSPX is not tolerant of sedevacantism. They have been known to be very strict in expelling Priests who persist in sede views. Laypeople are harder to control and where you have a TLM, chances are you are going to find someone who leans sede. This is unavoidable, and I think it would be unfair to blame the layperson’s viewpoint on the Society.
The more appropriate question might be whether Traditionalism encourages sympathy towards the sedevacantist position. Does liberal Catholicism encourage a sympathy towards women’s ordination?
M
malphono
Guest
Still, that’s rather like holding the father responsible for the actions of his adult son. Just because DD had doubts regarding one or more Popes (I said he was rather “rigid” so it doesn’t surprise me) does not by itself impute those doubts to the SSPX as a group, particularly not during the time the late Apb and founder was still alive.
Agreed. But that only reflects on the mind of those individuals, not on the SSPX as a group.
M
Moscati
Guest
Can I ask why you have an issue with it?
I’ve visited an “Anglican Use” parish with a married priest before, and their liturgy was absolutely breathtaking . . . it’s based on a 16th century translation of the Tridentine Mass, and is not unlike the EF, especially in its reverence. I suspect this Deacon (now a priest) is involved with your diocese’s TLM precisely because he has experience with conducting that kind of liturgy. It may be that his presence will help all the problems you noted get resolved faster! The Church has seen fit to welcome him–give him a chance.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
First of all, I asked a question about the number of people that attend Latin Mass who speak fluent Latin. For all I knew, it was a large majority… it was a legitimate question. For somebody throwing around flippant remarks about how a 3rd grader can follow Latin, you might want to check your own English comprehension skills.
Mal: First of all - my response was to the poster who originally made the insulting snarky comment that “Not everyone is as smart as you or your children” My response is TRUE. Explain to me what is so difficult about following along in an English / Latin Missal at a Latin Mass? When you can answer that question - perhaps you would understand that it isnt that diffficult which is what my original point was. Perhaps if someone is insulted by that or my English Comprehension feel free to point out the fact that I am nothing but a miserable publican who slinks in the back of the Church on my knees. Or say thank you whichever emotion comes to mind first. You are simultaneously both welcome and forgiven from my standpoint .
Secondly, in your zeal to respond so charitably to the question, you missed the point about phonetics, emphasis on syllables and chanting as a roadblock to following the guide book with ease.
Could I follow the basic flow of the Mass without drooling on myself? Yeah, I’m pretty sure I can match wits with Malleus Jr. Boy Genius.
Mal" Of course you can. Pride has a way of teaching you that doesnt it.
I was once qualified to operate every working system on a United States Submarine including the reactor, so I’m fairly certain I could make you look like the town dunce if I wanted to…
Mal: You already have.
Luke 18:10. Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee and the other a publican.
18:11. The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.
18:12. I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess.
18:13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
18:14. I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
But I do want to thank you for one thing. In one short paragraph, you’ve continued to cement what I have already known and continue to confirm about the schismatic group of sedavacantists you belong to.
Mal: Yes , we Samaritans have never been a favorite of you Pharisees have we.
Mal: First of all - my response was to the poster who originally made the insulting snarky comment that “Not everyone is as smart as you or your children” My response is TRUE. Explain to me what is so difficult about following along in an English / Latin Missal at a Latin Mass? When you can answer that question - perhaps you would understand that it isnt that diffficult which is what my original point was. Perhaps if someone is insulted by that or my English Comprehension feel free to point out the fact that I am nothing but a miserable publican who slinks in the back of the Church on my knees. Or say thank you whichever emotion comes to mind first. You are simultaneously both welcome and forgiven from my standpoint .
Secondly, in your zeal to respond so charitably to the question, you missed the point about phonetics, emphasis on syllables and chanting as a roadblock to following the guide book with ease.
Could I follow the basic flow of the Mass without drooling on myself? Yeah, I’m pretty sure I can match wits with Malleus Jr. Boy Genius.
Mal" Of course you can. Pride has a way of teaching you that doesnt it.
I was once qualified to operate every working system on a United States Submarine including the reactor, so I’m fairly certain I could make you look like the town dunce if I wanted to…
Mal: You already have.
Luke 18:10. Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee and the other a publican.
18:11. The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.
18:12. I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess.
18:13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
18:14. I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
But I do want to thank you for one thing. In one short paragraph, you’ve continued to cement what I have already known and continue to confirm about the schismatic group of sedavacantists you belong to.
Mal: Yes , we Samaritans have never been a favorite of you Pharisees have we.
D
Donatarius
Guest
I am a parishioner at the Church of the Assumption in Nashville and attended the same Mass and can say:
That being said, its clergy and parishioners are, unfortunately, human beings and not angels, and therefore fall short of the glory of God from time to time. Some of them will talk when they shouldn’t. Some will not dress as they should. Some will spend the entire Mass being hyper-critical of every misstep of every clergyman or parishioner in the place (I will 'fess up to that one myself).
I hope you will give the extraordinary form of the Mass, and Assumption (whether you attend the extraordinary form or the novus ordo Mass there), another chance.
- The Mass you attended was a missa cantata: a sung Mass celebrated by a priest without deacon or sub-deacon assisting at the altar.
- Fr. Schmit sung the Mass. He was ordained well before the Council and knows what he is doing.
- As others have noted, the deacon from whom you received Holy Communion was at the time a transitional deacon assigned to the parish. He assists in the distribution of Holy Communion at the celebrant’s request (the celebrant is nearly 90 years old). As of yesterday, he is a priest. He is a holy man.
- Many people you saw in attendance knew what they were doing. Some you saw did not. You could not distinguish those who knew from those who did not because you did not. The people who did not know what they were doing did not because they, like you, were learning, and because this was only the fifth such Mass at Assumption.
- A few people were late, a few people whispered discretely as they, like you, tried to make sense of a new and confusing experience, a few people walked in or out of the nave for any number of reasons, the vast majority of which are no doubt reasonable, and a few in attendance were dressed inappropriately; the vast majority were not late, sat still, kept silent, and were dressed appropriately.
- The first time one attends a Mass celebrated in the extraordinary form of the Latin Rite, it is confusing. It will be increasingly less confusing as one attends more often. One cannot expect to master a new experience in one instance, and one should be cautious about realizations that come from a single experience.
- Most in attendance do not speak or read Latin fluently. They, like you, rely on hand missals with Latin on one side and English on the other.
- Most in attendance are or will become comfortable chanting their parts, e.g., Et cum spiritu tuo (And with thy spirit), Habemus ad Dominum (We lift them up unto the Lord.), Dignum et iustum est (It is meet and just.)
- I must confess that my mind is blown that one could be scandalized by attending a Mass celebrated in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite by an orthodox priest, complete with a meaningful homily, reverent altar boys, incense, and Gregorian chant, in a beautiful and traditional church.
That being said, its clergy and parishioners are, unfortunately, human beings and not angels, and therefore fall short of the glory of God from time to time. Some of them will talk when they shouldn’t. Some will not dress as they should. Some will spend the entire Mass being hyper-critical of every misstep of every clergyman or parishioner in the place (I will 'fess up to that one myself).
I hope you will give the extraordinary form of the Mass, and Assumption (whether you attend the extraordinary form or the novus ordo Mass there), another chance.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
<<<< Still, that’s rather like holding the father responsible for the actions of his adult son. Just because DD had doubts regarding one or more Popes (I said he was rather “rigid” so it doesn’t surprise me) does not by itself impute those doubts to the SSPX as a group, particularly not during the time the late Apb and founder was still alive. >>>>>
Mal: Correct me if I am wrong - but there is not a single person here qualified to pass judgement on SSPX - Or any Bishop from either the Archbishop Lefebvre or Archbishop Thuc lines whether they be SSPX or Sedevacantist at this point in time or in the past as well. Just as St Vincent Ferrer was fooled into allegiance to an Anti Pope so too could all of you be alligned to an Anti Pope. For all you know - Archbishop Lefebvre was right or perhaps Archbishop Thuc was right. I find it facinating that so many of you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that your position is the only plausible position. And thus do you run with it. All of you claim to adhere to the precepts of Vatican II. But everyone of you who likewise claims its validity - by taking the stance you take in regards to SSPX or Sedevacantists is likewise guilty of violating the Precepts of "DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
" itself.
" First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you” (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it. "
Is it your position that Sedevacatists and members of SSPX have not done so?
Secondly:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
Mal: It would appear that the overly judgemental attitude present here in regards to both SSPX and in regards to Sedevacantism is in direct violation of these precepts of Vatican II that you seemingly champion but fail to abide by?
Any comments?
Mal: Correct me if I am wrong - but there is not a single person here qualified to pass judgement on SSPX - Or any Bishop from either the Archbishop Lefebvre or Archbishop Thuc lines whether they be SSPX or Sedevacantist at this point in time or in the past as well. Just as St Vincent Ferrer was fooled into allegiance to an Anti Pope so too could all of you be alligned to an Anti Pope. For all you know - Archbishop Lefebvre was right or perhaps Archbishop Thuc was right. I find it facinating that so many of you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that your position is the only plausible position. And thus do you run with it. All of you claim to adhere to the precepts of Vatican II. But everyone of you who likewise claims its validity - by taking the stance you take in regards to SSPX or Sedevacantists is likewise guilty of violating the Precepts of "DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
" itself.
" First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you” (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it. "
Is it your position that Sedevacatists and members of SSPX have not done so?
Secondly:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
Mal: It would appear that the overly judgemental attitude present here in regards to both SSPX and in regards to Sedevacantism is in direct violation of these precepts of Vatican II that you seemingly champion but fail to abide by?
Any comments?
- Status