SSPX

[Rhamiel]

I attend an N.O. Mass
before every mass there is confession a half hour before Mass for the week day Mass and for a full hour before Masses on the weekend
a number of the young ladies (in there teens and twenties) wear chapel veils
most of the congregation receives communion on the tongue and some kneel to receive communion
after Mass we pray the Angelus and the St. Michael prayer
there is Eucharistic adoration twice a week with the exposition of the Host and the rosary

the congregation is respectful and do not chatter in the sanctuary

you do not need Latin Mass in order to have reverence and respect
you just need discipline among the priests and laity

 

[WarriorAngel]

I attend an N.O. Mass
before every mass there is confession a half hour before Mass for the week day Mass and for a full hour before Masses on the weekend
a number of the young ladies (in there teens and twenties) wear chapel veils
most of the congregation receives communion on the tongue and some kneel to receive communion
after Mass we pray the Angelus and the St. Michael prayer
there is Eucharistic adoration twice a week with the exposition of the Host and the rosary

the congregation is respectful and do not chatter in the sanctuary

you do not need Latin Mass in order to have reverence and respect
you just need discipline among the priests and laity

Thats what i'd like to see.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I attend an N.O. Mass
before every mass there is confession a half hour before Mass for the week day Mass and for a full hour before Masses on the weekend
a number of the young ladies (in there teens and twenties) wear chapel veils
most of the congregation receives communion on the tongue and some kneel to receive communion
after Mass we pray the Angelus and the St. Michael prayer
there is Eucharistic adoration twice a week with the exposition of the Host and the rosary

the congregation is respectful and do not chatter in the sanctuary

you do not need Latin Mass in order to have reverence and respect
you just need discipline among the priests and laity

As true as that is, the elements you describe are explicitly woven into the TLM. They're up to the priest's discretion in the new Mass. I can't help thinking that colors how parishioners behave, worship and pray.

I used to think I didn't like Novus Ordo. What I came to understand is what I don't like as much is a Low Mass, irrespective of vernacular. A High Novus Ordo Mass is a wonderful thing. The TLM is awesome but there's a lot to admire about the NO.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Hello guys,

My understanding is that the Anglican ordinirate mass is like a traditional latin mass but in English.

Cheers

 

[RileyG]

I attend an N.O. Mass
before every mass there is confession a half hour before Mass for the week day Mass and for a full hour before Masses on the weekend
a number of the young ladies (in there teens and twenties) wear chapel veils
most of the congregation receives communion on the tongue and some kneel to receive communion
after Mass we pray the Angelus and the St. Michael prayer
there is Eucharistic adoration twice a week with the exposition of the Host and the rosary

the congregation is respectful and do not chatter in the sanctuary

you do not need Latin Mass in order to have reverence and respect
you just need discipline among the priests and laity

Sounds like a wonderful parish.

Thank you, Rhamiel for this post.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Hello guys,

My understanding is that the Anglican ordinirate mass is like a traditional latin mass but in English.

I find this very easy to believe. In fact, I've read very credible arguments (made by Catholic seminarians) that the main reason the NO wording was revised a few years ago was precisely because the original translation was a bit rushed and the Anglicans were thought to have a better translation.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

C'mon if the Ruthenians can properly translate the DL, then the Tridentine can be done so as well; enough with the halfway measures, no more of Luther's mass!

 

[Anhelyna]

Virgil - you think that the translation that was done some 8 years ago by the Ruthenians was well received ??

it's my understanding that many of them left and went to the UGCC or Orthodoxy. Thankfully the other EC Churches have not done anything as drastic as that

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Not sure how things are in Europe; but it seems as if the Ruthenian translation here in the States is far more authentic and less latinised. That's just my own anecdote and from I can tell. That's all.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

The parish I'd attended was with the Ruthenian Archeparchy of Pittsburgh; as far as I can tell it was 100% orthodox and didn't have any latinisations or modernism in it (I'd be able to tell).

 

[RileyG]

C'mon if the Ruthenians can properly translate the DL, then the Tridentine can be done so as well; enough with the halfway measures, no more of Luther's mass!

The Lutheran Divine Service (NOT known as Mass) has it roots in pre-tridentine liturgy. That's why, to a certain extent, the Lutheran Divine Service and Catholic Mass (post Vatican II) are nearly identical.

Lutherans are an offshoot.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

BTW - the Pope never instructed the changes we see today.
He only wanted the vernacular.
Each region 'translated' the changes as they felt it meant to them.

So Vll wasnt the culprit.

VII wasn't technically the culprit. However, there was some ambiguity with how VII was presented as dogmatic yet pastoral at the same time which makes it necessary that the reader know how to distinguish the parts in it that are dogmatic vs. the parts that are pastoral. Most Catholics of the modern age, particularly in the West, aren't educated enough in the faith to know the difference, but VII makes the assumption that the reader already knows. The modernists exploited this to misrepresent VII and make radical changes that VII never actually called for. Catholics were scandalized by these radical changes, and it convinced some that it was proof that the current papacy wasn't valid. But they were mainly reacting to the reaction instead of to VII itself.

 

[Dialogist]

Deleted

 

[Virgil the Roman]

If I am not mistaken, Mel Gibson is a member and contributes quite a bit of money.

I am a former Roman Catholic who grew up in a very traditional environment, who came to the Orthodox Church. In my opinion, SSPX doesn't solve anything. Pre-Vatican II theology, in my opinion, is seriously flawed theology, where as Post-Vatican II theology is watered-down seriously flawed theology. I'm not sure which is worse.

You and I would do well to PM or commiserate with one another; I'm interested in your perspective.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Gibson attends and supports a Sedevacantist chapel, not SSPX; there is a distinct difference. I've attended and supported both; I am, at least presently am both. Yet, they are not interchangeable.

 

[WarriorAngel]

VII wasn't technically the culprit. However, there was some ambiguity with how VII was presented as dogmatic yet pastoral at the same time which makes it necessary that the reader know how to distinguish the parts in it that are dogmatic vs. the parts that are pastoral. Most Catholics of the modern age, particularly in the West, aren't educated enough in the faith to know the difference, but VII makes the assumption that the reader already knows. The modernists exploited this to misrepresent VII and make radical changes that VII never actually called for. Catholics were scandalized by these radical changes, and it convinced some that it was proof that the current papacy wasn't valid. But they were mainly reacting to the reaction instead of to VII itself.

Which is why ppl are not to impose their opinions and must go to the source.
However; the problem did come from less than stellar opinions post Vll on how the Mass could be shortened - or more desirable ...
Yet im of the opinion that a high NO Mass would fit my needs.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Which is why ppl are not to impose their opinions and must go to the source.
However; the problem did come from less than stellar opinions post Vll on how the Mass could be shortened - or more desirable ...
Yet im of the opinion that a high NO Mass would fit my needs.

What happened after VII proves the old saying that goes, "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile."

 

[Colin]

Pre-Vatican II theology, in my opinion, is seriously flawed theology, where as Post-Vatican II theology is watered-down seriously flawed theology. I'm not sure which is worse.

Which theology prior to Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum and which theology after Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum are you referring to ?

 

[Dialogist]

Deleted

 

[Colin]

I think all of the following - which are viewed to be heretical by the Orthodox Church - occurred prior to and were either confirmed or passively reconfirmed (i.e. not renounced) by Vatican I:

1. Rejection of original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith (Creed), as ratified by the Church at the 2nd Ecumenical Council in 381

2. The doctrine that the Pope can teach any dogma on his own authority, without the consensus of the Church; to whit (#3 and #4):

3. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 (a declaration that Vatican I affirmed to be ex cathedra after the fact) that there was God intervened extraordinarily in Her conception.

4. The doctrine of the Assumption affirmed ex cathedra by Pope Pius XII in 1950 that the Virgin was assumed bodily into heaven without dying

5. The doctrine of a state or condition of purgatory after death where sinners pay off the temporal punishment that they allegedly owe to God for their sins, and the accompanying doctrine surrounding indulgences

6. The doctrine that Christ's crucifixion was a payment of a debt of punishment that humans owe God for their sins and not, rather, "that Christ’s self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning, and redeeming payment of the debt of perfect love, perfect righteous, obedience, gratitude, and glory that human beings owe to God."

7. The doctrine that the Pope can teach any dogma on his own authority, without the consensus of the Church.

8. The doctrine that the primacy of the Pope includes ecclesiastical authority over bishops under the authority of other Patriarchs or over his fellow Patriarchs themselves other than that as the chief spokesperson for all bishops in apostolic succession.

I don't think I put what I felt about Vatican II correctly. Actually, I think Vatican II did take the Roman Catholic Church in the right direction in some respects (e.g. a clearer acceptance of conducting the Liturgy in local languages). After considering your question, I realize I did not think very clearly on this.

My comments about Vatican II came from personal feelings rather than clear thinking. Perhaps Vatican II was only coincidental and not the root cause of many of the changes I saw growing up as a Roman Catholic, but it seemed to me that following Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church tried to make itself seem "more Protestant", for whatever reason. In 1978, I was a student at a high school run by Benedictine monks, who would serve a 7 am Mass every day with Gregorian chants. Although my local parish did not have these kind of masses, it still retailed the same sort of piety. The last time I visited a Roman Catholic Church (2011), it was for the funeral of someone who was being cremated, in a large "megachurch" style brick building with no statues or images of any kind and not even a cross. Except for a tablecloth and chalice on the altar and the priests vestments, one would have thought one was in an auditorium.

I fail to see how any of the above should lead you to say , as you did say , " Pre-Vatican II theology, in my opinion, is seriously flawed theology, where as Post-Vatican II theology is watered-down seriously flawed theology."

Rather a sweeping , vague generalisation .....of which we get plenty on this forum ......unfortunately .

Are you familiar with "Pre-Vatican II theology" and "Pre-Vatican II theology" ? And any of the theologians who were and still are around ?