Pre-Vatican II

[Elizium23]

No, mostly in the Mass. Examples: some keep eyes on Host while others (a more mature group) bow; head coverings, to name a few.

srfnolen

There is no need to get into a maturity contest, but I will point out that the rubrics of the Mass instruct the priest to “show to the people” the Host and the Chalice. So how does he show the Eucharist to a bunch of people who are bowing their heads?

Also, in the days before the new Enchiridion of Indulgences, there was an indulgence of seven years granted by Pope St. Pius X to those who look upon the Sacred Species and say silently, “My Lord and My God!”

So I think there is a pretty good case for those who do not bow. Thanks.

 

[trish2009]

There is no need to get into a maturity contest, but I will point out that the rubrics of the Mass instruct the priest to “show to the people” the Host and the Chalice. So how does he show the Eucharist to a bunch of people who are bowing their heads?

Also, in the days before the new Enchiridion of Indulgences, there was an indulgence of seven years granted by Pope St. Pius X to those who look upon the Sacred Species and say silently, “My Lord and My God!”

So I think there is a pretty good case for those who do not bow. Thanks.

When I attend Mass I look up at the chalice, say My Lord and my God and then bow my head. You can do both.

 

[Saints_Alive]

I am a new Catholic. Catholics 60+ in my parish exhibit certain characteristics and Catholic habits that I find very intriguing and beautiful really.

If I wanted to know what Catholic life was like before Vatican II what books would I read or websites would I visit? As a beginner Catholic I would like to see the differences.

srfnolen

Greetings,
One of our members has an excellent site with countless traditional Catholic books which are downloadable or can be read online.

Look for titles by Saint Alphonsus, Fr F. X. Lasance, and St Louis De Montfort

saintsbooks.net/BooksList.html

Father Lasance’s “My Prayer Book” is chock full of various devotions.

In Christ,
Charles

 

[smead2942]

I knew the SSPX was schismatic/sedevacantic as are the Willing Shepherds of Jesus Christ but I wasn’t sure about the FSSP.

The Society of Saint Pius X is not sedevacantist or schismatic.

Sedevacantism is a heresy that has been condemned by both the Holy See and the Society. Many priests (and even a bishop) have been expelled from the SSPX for adhering to it. There is no schism between the Society and Rome. Their priests are suspended from licitly performing their faculties, so they are in imperfect canonical standing, but NOT in schism.

 

[JimmyG88]

The Society of Saint Pius X is not sedevacantist or schismatic.

Sedevacantism is a heresy that has been condemned by both the Holy See and the Society. Many priests (and even a bishop) have been expelled from the SSPX for adhering to it. There is no schism between the Society and Rome. Their priests are suspended from licitly performing their faculties, so they are in imperfect canonical standing, but NOT in schism.

Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, stated on 22 December 2013 that the leaders of the Society are in schism, having departed from communion with the Church, but that the door is open for them if they change their attitude and accept the Catholic Church’s conditions and the Pope as the definitive criterion of membership

 

[ProVobis]

Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, stated on 22 December 2013 that the leaders of the Society are in schism,

This was BEFORE the Pope allowed the Society priests to hear confessions legally, beginning Dec. 8th of this year.

 

[JimmyG88]

This was BEFORE the Pope allowed the Society priests to hear confessions legally, beginning Dec. 8th of this year.

Whatever. They are disobedient bunch

 

[Gloriazubiran]

Hello at the moment my boyfriend and I are planning on getting married thougg there has become a slight conflict. He is traditional Latin Catholic and when meeting with a priest from my parish, the priest told us that because he was traditional Catholic that we can’t receive communion at our wedding that it would just be a ceremony. My boyfriend now is offend because he went through all his catechism, did all his sacraments and attends Mass every Sunday and lives a Catholic lifestyle. He doesn’t feel he should have to retake everything he’s done. My question is why would he need to retake his sacraments and why is it that we are only allowed to have a ceremony when we both are practicing Catholics?

 

[JimmyG88]

Hello at the moment my boyfriend and I are planning on getting married thougg there has become a slight conflict. He is traditional Latin Catholic and when meeting with a priest from my parish, the priest told us that because he was traditional Catholic that we can’t receive communion at our wedding that it would just be a ceremony. My boyfriend now is offend because he went through all his catechism, did all his sacraments and attends Mass every Sunday and lives a Catholic lifestyle. He doesn’t feel he should have to retake everything he’s done. My question is why would he need to retake his sacraments and why is it that we are only allowed to have a ceremony when we both are practicing Catholics?

What is a traditional ‘Latin Catholic’ there is only one Roman Catholic Church is he a member of it or not? Even if he isn’t that wouldn’t necessarily make a difference to having a full Nuptual Mass

 

[ProVobis]

Hello at the moment my boyfriend and I are planning on getting married thougg there has become a slight conflict. He is traditional Latin Catholic and when meeting with a priest from my parish, the priest told us that because he was traditional Catholic that we can’t receive communion at our wedding that it would just be a ceremony. My boyfriend now is offend because he went through all his catechism, did all his sacraments and attends Mass every Sunday and lives a Catholic lifestyle. He doesn’t feel he should have to retake everything he’s done. My question is why would he need to retake his sacraments and why is it that we are only allowed to have a ceremony when we both are practicing Catholics?

DId you ask for the TLM? Just curious.

 

[Kielbasi]

I am a new Catholic. Catholics 60+ in my parish exhibit certain characteristics and Catholic habits that I find very intriguing and beautiful really.

If I wanted to know what Catholic life was like before Vatican II what books would I read or websites would I visit? As a beginner Catholic I would like to see the differences.

srfnolen

The 1960’s and before were a different age for society as a whole, as well as the church.

People dressed up to go to church back in the day, but heck, they dressed up go to a baseball game too.

The modern day traditional Latin Mass really isn’t the same as it was in traditional days. Nowadays, its usually a high mass (sung), the popular mass usually said was the spoken low mass. On a Sunday (no vigil masses), a parish might have 5 or 6 scheduled masses, with just 1 as the high mass. Saturday afternoon was big for confessions, not mass.

Most parishes back in the bygone days had parish schools teaching the youths up through the 12th grade. A majority of the teachers were nuns, and the parents of the parish were generally expected to send their kids there. Personally, I didn’t attend Catholic school as the school didn’t have room for me during the baby boom, and my mum was living in a new subdivision with some dispute as to where the parish line was. That’s the other thing, people were expected to attend mass in the parish they lived in, unless they belonged to a parish for their particular ethnic group (Poles, Germans, Slovaks, etc).

The old immigrants were still around, the Church provided things like the CYO for activities for the youths, a lot greater percentage of the people were in attendance on Sunday, traditional days were a lot different than the current time.

 

[otjm]

This was BEFORE the Pope allowed the Society priests to hear confessions legally, beginning Dec. 8th of this year.

Which had, and has, absolutely nothing to do with their schismatic stances.

Even a priest who is laicized can here confession in an emergency.
Their status with the Church has not changed; they simply have been granted temporary authority to hear confessions, which they did not have but did anyway.

 

[ProVobis]

Which had, and has, absolutely nothing to do with their schismatic stances.

Even a priest who is laicized can here confession in an emergency.
Their status with the Church has not changed; they simply have been granted temporary authority to hear confessions, which they did not have but did anyway.

Simply?

 

[commenter]

The 1960’s and before were a different age for society as a whole, as well as the church.

People dressed up to go to church back in the day, but heck, they dressed up go to a baseball game too.

The modern day traditional Latin Mass really isn’t the same as it was in traditional days. Nowadays, its usually a high mass (sung), the popular mass usually said was the spoken low mass. On a Sunday (no vigil masses), a parish might have 5 or 6 scheduled masses, with just 1 as the high mass. Saturday afternoon was big for confessions, not mass.

That’s the other thing, people were expected to attend mass in the parish they lived in, unless they belonged to a parish for their particular ethnic group (Poles, Germans, Slovaks, etc).

Show me a parish where many go to Confession frequently, and that’s half the battle in renewing a parish (or school). Show me a parish where few go to Confession more than twice a year, and it’s not a healthy parish, no matter how many activities they have.

The old immigrants were still around, the Church provided things like the CYO for activities for the youths, a lot greater percentage of the people were in attendance on Sunday, traditional days were a lot different than the current time.

This seems like the best summary so far in the thread. I emphasize the importance of Confession. It was HUGE, with long lines on Saturday, but many parishes offered it every weekday as well. IMHO, the decline of Confession into something most Catholics never do, and most “good” Catholics do only twice a year, is the biggest factor in the Church’s decline.

 

[Kielbasi]

If I wanted to know what Catholic life was like before Vatican II what books would I read or websites would I visit? As a beginner Catholic I would like to see the differences.

srfnolen

Read Right From the Beginning by Patrick J. Buchanan. There is a lot of politics in the book as well, but Mr. Buchanan gives a pretty detailed description of his experiences in the Catholic church and schools in Washington DC back in the day. Mr. Buchanan attended Catholic school through graduation, and served as an altar server as a youth.

 

[JimmyG88]

This seems like the best summary so far in the thread. I emphasize the importance of Confession. It was HUGE, with long lines on Saturday, but many parishes offered it every weekday as well. IMHO, the decline of Confession into something most Catholics never do, and most “good” Catholics do only twice a year, is the biggest factor in the Church’s decline.

And evening mass on holidays of obligation was packed

 

[commenter]

On post 34 I apparently added my own paragraph in a way that it looks like it came from Kielbasi (about Confession), oops.

I wanted to point out another difference, that of hierarchy. If you were in a parish, the pastor was truly in charge: both of other priests in the parish, if any; of the school; and of the parishioners in general. The pastor’s preaching and direction was a big part of your spiritual life. The bishop of the diocese had enormous authority, not only in terms of diocesan operations but as descent from the apostles.

We still have pastors and bishops today, but many lay people (liberals, conservatives, and many in between) regard them merely as functionaries, administrators who have no “authority” in terms of my spiritual life. Laity expect preaching to be little more than a bible study, or maybe condemning the sins of the rich and powerful (not our own sins). They may choose to agree with the bishop, but they fail to benefit from the bishop’s authority because they don’t recognize it.

The Church before V2 was far more effective at facilitating conversion, because of obedience to someone other than myself.

 

[Padres1969]

The Society of Saint Pius X is not sedevacantist or schismatic.

Sedevacantism is a heresy that has been condemned by both the Holy See and the Society. Many priests (and even a bishop) have been expelled from the SSPX for adhering to it. There is no schism between the Society and Rome. Their priests are suspended from licitly performing their faculties, so they are in imperfect canonical standing, but NOT in schism.

I’m confused then. If the SSPX is not schismatic, then how does a group like this (Dominican Priests and Brothers of the Holy Face of Jesus), who are openly sedevacantic and were ordained by Bishop Robert McKenna who was consecrated in a line from the SSPX fit into the scheme of things? Are they a breakaway from the SSPX (like the SSPV which are sedevacantists as I understand it) or is there not an internal agreement among the SSPX whether or not they’re actually sedevacantists?

 

[ProVobis]

…in a line from the SSPX fit into the scheme of things? Are they a breakaway from the SSPX (like the SSPV which are sedevacantists as I understand it) or is there not an internal agreement among the SSPX whether or not they’re actually sedevacantists?

You’re correct, there are breakaway groups which shouldn’t be grouped with the order currently headed by Bishop Fellay. The FSSP is one such group, which as most have noted, is in full communion with the Church. The others seemed to have distanced themselves considerably from the Church, some even away from Canon Law altogether, among other things.

 

[Padres1969]

You’re correct, there are breakaway groups which shouldn’t be grouped with the order currently headed by Bishop Fellay. The FSSP is one such group, which as most have noted, is in full communion with the Church. The others seemed to have distanced themselves considerably from the Church, some even away from Canon Law altogether, among other things.

Ah so SSPX has had divisions internally with some breakaways going back to communion with Rome like FSSP, the main SSPX coming back part way so to speak where they’re in talks with Rome and have been granted rights by Rome such as confessional, and some breakaways from SSPX like SSPV and this Willing Shepherd’s group staying squarely in the schismatic/sedevacant camp.

That makes more sense now. Thank you.