Question for SSPX chapel-goers.

[Wintersdemise]

The Mass has nothing to do with how it “really makes (you) feel.” God is “literally there with you” in the Pauline Mass, too.

The Latin Mass is a mystical experience for me. This same sense of the divine is not given to me at a Pauline Mass.

 

[Extempore]

In your opinion.

In the opinions of others, the LifeTeen, liturgical dancers and peppy music convey an atmosphere of proper joy in the presence of God and His worship (a la the Psalm ‘praise the Lord with cymbals and harps … with timbrel and dance’ etc etc) that the chant and Latin prayers do not.

Joy, arguably, and definitely favorable emotions but not reverence and definitely not solemnity.

I think sometimes people get confused as to what behaviors to exhibit at what times. Yes, we should “make a joyful noise unto the Lord” and “praise the Lord with cymbals and harps and dance, etc” but not at Mass.

The Mass is a Holy Sacrifice and therefore, a solemn occasion in which the demeanor of the laity should be, at all times, reverent.

Don’t blame me, I didn’t make the rules.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of this poster

Understood.

 

[Timothysis]

The Latin Mass is a mystical experience for me. This same sense of the divine is not given to me at a Pauline Mass.

I remember reading about when the Pauline Mass was adopted and the opinions of some of those who stopped going when they realized that the latin prayers that sounded so mystical and divine in latin no longer sounded so mystical and divine in english. Could part of this devotion be that some think it sounds “cool” when people recite the prayers and responses in latin and are turned off when they realize that they’ve simply been saying “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” instead of some mysterious, almost magical sounding phrases?

The same Christ is present whether it be in the Pauline Mass or the Latin Mass. How can anything be more divine?

 

[malphono]

It was Pius himself, in Quo Primum, who said these things, not the ‘infallible Council of Trent’. In the interests of accuracy.

Moreover, all Pius said was that the Latin Mass ‘may freely and lawfully be used’ in perpetity, not that it was to be the ONLY form of Mass/liturgy

This is abundantly clear from the fact that even WITHIN the Latin Rite, Pius allowed continuance of the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Carmelite, Dominican and EVERY other liturgy that was more than 200 years older than the TLM.

It seems to me that the list is complete save for the Bragan, Carthusian, and Cistercian usages.

Now Lily, I’m not in disagreement, but I’ll make a comment anyway, solely for the purpose of clarification:

I believe that the principle used was “more than 200 years old and in continuous use.” The remaining usages (including the Sarum and Gallican) were, therefore, officially suppressed in order that they not be “revived” at some later time.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

What is this nonsense about it not mattering how Mass makes you feel? Of course it matters. Don’t let your desire to defend the TLM make you condemn what is fitting along with what is abusive.

The Mass ought to be an encounter with Mystery, an experience of terrifying and alluring transcendence. A proper understanding of liturgy should include a discussion about the effect liturgy has on the people in attendance. This is true in terms of catechesis, but it is also correct to talk about the feelings that are elicited.

The Second Vatican Council taught that:
“116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

LifeTeen music and liturgical dancing should be avoided because they do not elicit proper joy. Euphoria without solemnity is not appropriate for the Mass.

 

[maurin]

The Second Vatican Council taught that:
“116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

LifeTeen music and liturgical dancing should be avoided because they do not elicit proper joy. Euphoria without solemnity is not appropriate for the Mass.

but isn’t lifeteen music and liturgical dancing the result of “other things being equal”?

Was the Archbishop the only one who heard the ticking of the timing mechanism of that bomb before it went off?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

but isn’t lifeteen music and liturgical dancing the result of “other things being equal”?

I think the point is that the two are equally bad.

 

[maurin]

I think the point is that the two are equally bad.

of course, but the point remains that it is within the document itself, “all things being equal” which permitted the lifeteen music, which has been in my experience protestant rock n roll music.

 

[Wintersdemise]

I remember reading about when the Pauline Mass was adopted and the opinions of some of those who stopped going when they realized that the latin prayers that sounded so mystical and divine in latin no longer sounded so mystical and divine in english. Could part of this devotion be that some think it sounds “cool” when people recite the prayers and responses in latin and are turned off when they realize that they’ve simply been saying “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” instead of some mysterious, almost magical sounding phrases?

The same Christ is present whether it be in the Pauline Mass or the Latin Mass. How can anything be more divine?

The beauty of Mass is that it should stimulate your senses. The sounds of chanting and bells, the smell of incense, the sight of stained glass windows and glorious icons, ect.

The Pauline mass does not exactly do this for me as much as the Latin Mass does.

It’s not the fact that I’m denying Christ is present in the Pauline Mass. I just think Christ deserves something more grand, such as the Tridentine Mass.

Only the highest reverence is due to the Lord of the Universe!

 

[Wintersdemise]

What is this nonsense about it not mattering how Mass makes you feel? Of course it matters. Don’t let your desire to defend the TLM make you condemn what is fitting along with what is abusive.

The Mass ought to be an encounter with Mystery, an experience of terrifying and alluring transcendence. A proper understanding of liturgy should include a discussion about the effect liturgy has on the people in attendance. This is true in terms of catechesis, but it is also correct to talk about the feelings that are elicited.

Amen to that.

I remember when I was younger I was at Church with my Grandma and all of a sudden, two guys with acoustic guitars are sitting at the front. Even as a child, I thought in my head: Am I at a Protestant Church!?

It’s funny how something like that sticks out in my mind. It’s not exactly like I hate the Pauline Mass, it’s what I have grown up with. I just think that it is unfair that me and millions of other young people have been deprived of the Tridentine Mass!

I guess I’m just old school.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

of course, but the point remains that it is within the document itself, “all things being equal” which permitted the lifeteen music, which has been in my experience protestant rock n roll music.

Oh, I misunderstood your point. I think “all things being equal” is not an assertion but rather a qualification for giving Chant pride of place. It doesn’t say that all things (like LifeTeen and liturgical dancing) are actually equal.

Essentially, in my humble attempt to reword: If there are no extraordinary circumstances, Gregorian Chant is to be given pride of place.

 

[LilyM]

The beauty of Mass is that it should stimulate your senses. The sounds of chanting and bells, the smell of incense, the sight of stained glass windows and glorious icons, ect.

The Pauline mass does not exactly do this for me as much as the Latin Mass does.

It’s not the fact that I’m denying Christ is present in the Pauline Mass. I just think Christ deserves something more grand, such as the Tridentine Mass.

Only the highest reverence is due to the Lord of the Universe!

Interesting - this is the same Christ who was cradled in a manger when He could have chosen to be born in a palace, and when He could have chosen to ride into Jerusalem on a fancy horse instead rode in on a humble donkey.

The one who chose to associate with fishermen, tax collectors and prostitutes even though He could have kept company with the noble and famous? The one who asked us to be meek and humble like Him, and who called Himself ‘son of Man’ often, but never ‘son of God’? In fact the one who taught us to call God ‘Abba’ (‘Daddy’), and who taught us to approach Him as a child. Ever seen a child who was ALWAYS reverential and grand towards their ‘Daddy’?

Ever occured to you that just maybe the NO (thought not its abuses) came about partly as His idea? That just maybe He doesn’t always WANT grand, doesn’t always WANT obsequious reverence, even though He deserves it?

 

[maurin]

Oh, I misunderstood your point. I think “all things being equal” is not an assertion but rather a qualification for giving Chant pride of place. It doesn’t say that all things (like LifeTeen and liturgical dancing) are actually equal.

Essentially, in my humble attempt to reword: If there are no extraordinary circumstances, Gregorian Chant is to be given pride of place.

Essentially, in my not so humble attempt to point something out: there are many “time bombs” in the documents of Vatican II. This is one great example: “…other things being equal…” if other things are equal to Gregorian Chant, why would it be wrong to use them in the Mass? The Council said “other things being equal.”

 

[maurin]

Interesting - this is the same Christ who was cradled in a manger when He could have chosen to be born in a palace, and when He could have chosen to ride into Jerusalem on a fancy horse instead rode in on a humble donkey.

The one who chose to associate with fishermen, tax collectors and prostitutes even though He could have kept company with the noble and famous? The one who asked us to be meek and humble like Him, and who called Himself ‘son of Man’ often, but never ‘son of God’? In fact the one who taught us to call God ‘Abba’ (‘Daddy’), and who taught us to approach Him as a child. Ever seen a child who was ALWAYS reverential and grand towards their ‘Daddy’?

Ever occured to you that just maybe the NO (thought not its abuses) came about partly as His idea? That just maybe He doesn’t always WANT grand, doesn’t always WANT obsequious reverence, even though He deserves it?

anyone else hear the music ministry humming the melody of Linda Ronstadt’s “Different Drum?” while listening to this homily?

Ever seen a child who was ALWAYS reverential and grand towards their ‘Daddy’?

For goodness sake, Lily, ever seen a child who was God?

 

[Extempore]

Interesting - this is the same Christ who was cradled in a manger when He could have chosen to be born in a palace, and when He could have chosen to ride into Jerusalem on a fancy horse instead rode in on a humble donkey.

I think we should draw a careful distinction between the example of Christ willingly humbling Himself to become man and the way we, as poor human creatures, should behave in the presence of the Divine.

The minimalist argument doesn’t really fly when it comes to God Almighty. When faced with the reality that the Lord suffered horribly and died upon the cross for our sins, we are at awe of His mercy and goodness. And, as Christ Himself also gave us the Mass we have this one very real way of being present time and time again for this great mystery. It seems counter-intuitive to argue that this event should not be accompanied by the greatest awe, reverence and solemnity on our part.

(Incidentally, this was one of the Protestant errors that surfaced regarding the Church being too “luxurious” in manner. However, once the sacrificial aspect of the Mass is eliminated (as Luther desired) it makes sense to eliminate the elaborate trappings of reverence that go along with it).

 

[JustinMartyr100]

I do not want to start a FSSPX debate here, I am looking for opinions nothing more

I converted to Catholicism and was baptized and confirmed Easter 2007 in a liberal Novus Ordo parish. Ever since I have been drawn to pre-Vatican II liturgy and traditional practices. I am at a cross-roads. The parishes all around me are very liberal and I am a traditionalist. I have posted before about this.
The nearest Tridentine Mass is a long way off and only offered once a month. I can no longer stand the irreverence and heresy in the Novus Ordo parishes but I have no intention of walking into heresy by attending a FSSPX chapel either. If I run across anything that even remotely seems Sedevacantist I will leave. There is a FSSPX chapel 30 minutes away from where I live. I have wrestled with going for ages. I strive to be a loyal son of the Church but that is exactly why I want to attend this chapel. I want to participate in a Mass that is as it should be. I am discerning the priesthood and I am very seriously considering the FSSP but the parishes around me do not have the kind of atmosphere or masses that are very conductive to that. I realize the situation the FSSPX is in but the lifting of the excommunications of the bishops has given me hope.
Now someone PLEASE correct me if I am wrong but I have heard it said that if you attend a FSSPX chapel out of a desire for traditional sacraments and not because you wish to separate from the Holy See it is not a sin? At the moment the FSSPX seem more loyal to Tradition than anybody else around here. If any FSSPX members or anybody who has gone to their chapels could give me advice I would appreciate it.

Pax Vobiscum

In Christ
IrishDude

IrishDude: I just wanted to attempt to answer your original question. First off, I asked in the Ask an Apologist forum if it’s okay for me to attend an SSPX chapel now that the excommunications have been lifted, and Michelle Arnold recommends against it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=305266

The reason I asked is becuase I wasn’t sure if they are still in schism or not. They are certainly NOT in full communion, which I have heard on EWTN several times, and heard the Pope strongly imply on the Vatican youtube channel.

Here is what the Catechism says about receiving communion at the Eastern Churches:

CCC 1399: The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all—by apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”

SSPX are in the same position really, as the Eastern Churches. Both contain valid sacraments, and are in schism. The CCC says it is permissible to recieve communion at these churches given suitable circumstances AND approval of Church authority.

I don’t know that a longing for the Tridentine Mass which is otherwise not available is considered “suitable circumstances.” Although, I’m sure your local Bishop could decide that for you and give you the proper approval. Without that, it’s probably best to stay away…or not recieve communion, and that defeats the purpose.

I travel close to an hour and a half each Sunday to get to my Latin Mass when the SSPX chapel is even closer. It’s a sacrafice I make. I’m sure I will go once they are brought back into full communion. For the time being, some of the things they say on their website bother me. For example, they have a booklet called “Is the SSPX Schismatic? Excommunicated? Rome Says NO!” I haven’t taken the time to read this booklet and study their claims. I am sure there is some truth burried deep within the booklet. But, JP2 said they ARE schismatic in Ecclesia Dei. Some of the things they say just don’t make sense to me at ALL. From reading the FAQ on their website, it seems like there is a bitter spirit of separation. At the same time, their home page seems to indicate a long for that full communion with Rome. I don’t get it? (Not that I’ve read through EVERYTHING they have published, all of this is just my first impression. Please feel free to add your 2 cents everyone!)

On a PERSONAL note, for these reasons, I’d be uncomfortable attending Mass at an SSPX chapel even with permission from my Bishop. I truly hope these matters get resolved in the coming months. I think they can be a great gift to the Church.

 

[IrishDude45]

I’m glad this thread has started good conversations between folks. I think its important to talk more about the FSSPX like this instead of simply labeling them and not discussing the issue.

Thank you, JustinMartyr100, I have thought and prayed about this a lot since I originally posted this thread and since I posted again later. Like you, I still feel uneasy. I can only attend a Tridentine Mass once a month at best at the moment. I haven’t even been able to do that yet. There is a parish downtown that celebrates a reverent Novus Ordo in Latin, Communion kneeling, and everything. I think I better find my rest there from all this liberal riff raff on the Sunday’s I cannot attend the Tridentine. I think I will wait until the FSSPX situation clears up further before I go. Now that I think about it, I think my spiritual director would not approve of me attending a FSSPX chapel even though he loves the Tridentine Mass as much as anyone, I must humbly submit to his guidance.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Essentially, in my not so humble attempt to point something out: there are many “time bombs” in the documents of Vatican II. This is one great example: “…other things being equal…” if other things are equal to Gregorian Chant, why would it be wrong to use them in the Mass? The Council said “other things being equal.”

“Other things being equal” is a qualifier for statement and does not equate to the assertion “other things are equal”.

I think this is the difficulty with traditionalists. It’s very hard for us to unite under a common banner because our thinking styles are rigid and it’s easy for us to agree on just about everything and still quarrel about a tiny detail. This wouldn’t be so bad, except in this world people like to split into factions and liberals don’t mind strange bedfellows while we only want allies that agree with us in every aspect.

 

[maurin]

“Other things being equal” is a qualifier for statement and does not equate to the assertion “other things are equal”.

and seeing that this is one of the tags used by the liberals for their persistence in using inappropriate music during the Mass, please explain how your explanation makes sense?

[quoteI think this is the difficulty with traditionalists. It’s very hard for us to unite under a common banner because our thinking styles are rigid and it’s easy for us to agree on just about everything and still quarrel about a tiny detail. This wouldn’t be so bad, except in this world people like to split into factions and liberals don’t mind strange bedfellows while we only want allies that agree with us in every aspect.
[/QUOTE] if you say so.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

and seeing that this is one of the tags used by the liberals for their persistence in using inappropriate music during the Mass, please explain how your explanation makes sense?

Perhaps they’re wrong in using the line for that purpose.