The commentary in the denominations thread have piqued my interest in parish practices and such. Maybe one of you folks can help me wrap my brain around the forms of the Latin mass and the real and perceived difference between CMRI, SSPX and 'indult churches.' Seems to always be a little chest thumping between those small factions.



I was raised in the Catholic Church under the Novus Ordo. And I was fine with that for many years. But I came to the realization that some of the formality and worshipfulness was lost in translation. It has become informal and the we-can-do-jeans-and-Jesus-too attitude has infiltrated the Church. I think the revisions of the Novus Ordo have been outstanding. The words of the Eucharist prayer now actually say what they said in Latin. I have been to the Latin mass in a neighboring town. It was reverent and awe inspiring, but I did not feel like a participant, just an observer. I generally did not like that aspect.



My son is an organist and in his senior year of high school he was invited to play once a month at a traditional Episcopal service. So I tagged along. The service was almost identical to the mass, with a few things occurring in a different order and such. The Eucharistic prayer was word for word the Novus Ordo. The homily, despite statements to the contrary in the Book of Common Prayer, was more or less about the Real Presence. I was pretty astounded.



I just thought I would garner some insight and thoughts on Latin vs. Vernacular and such. Also in the interest of full disclosure, a dear friend that I love like a brother is SSPX in Pennsylvania. I worked with a fellow who went to a Latin Mass 'indult church.' Recently had a structural engineer at my house and he was Sedevacantist. None of these people are kooks or rebels, but they do have strongly held beliefs which I respect greatly

1962  Oct. 11    Vatican II,,,,   killed   the church

Umm... No.  Maybe, a hiccup.

Mathew 16:18

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "


One my top Bible  verses.

I was Baptized a Catholic as a new born when the Mass was in Latin and if I'm correct was a "Tridentine Mass"? It was what I was accustomed to prior to the Novus Order which I believe changed around 1969 or so. At first I didn't like the change because it seemed to take away some of the Holiness or authority of what the Mass represented. I understand why it's changed now and glad that it did. For most people I believe it is more friendly and less mystical because most of us don't speak Latin and as such we can understand it better. Under the Novus Ordo we're also more involved with the Mass. I'm not sure if this answers your question TWIRE but I have enjoyed your post a great deal.

Believe it or not one of the things I miss about the "old" Mass was some of the Gregorian Chants. Now, on occasion, I listen to them while I paint. They are refreshing, humbling, and remind me of how Great our Lord and Savior is.

Last week, my son was on the schedule to play organ/piano with a cantor. Because of college it was unclear whether he could make it so I arranged practice with the cantor and we agreed to sing the liturgy of the Eucharist in Latin. I thought it was cool. Several years ago at a local chapel a guest priest was invited for an occasion and his Mass was incredibly reverent, very much of the Eucharistic prayer was in Latin. I enjoy that aspect.



Also a few years ago on vacation, we went to mass at the cathedral in St. Louis. It was Novus Ordo but it was set up and staged very much in a Tridentine layout and order, if you know what I mean.



Being separated and only observing is the most discomfortable aspect I have with the Tridentine form.

In a way, this is true because many bishops used the opportunity to inappropriately loosen some of the disciplines that the Church treasured. But most of the time when a blanket statement like this is made, that person has not bothered to read the actual documents.



 

I was raised Methodist and didn't convert until I was 20. I've never attended anything but a NO Mass, but as TWIRE has I have attended Mass at the cathedral in St. Louis and I would say it was different enough to me that I feel like I can understand some of the differences between the two.

As far as relating to a non-Catholic church service, there were parts of the Methodist order of worship that had Catholic leanings - 3 Bible readings with 2 given by a layperson, Apostle's Creed and Lord's prayer, sign of peace (as a handshake). Other parts were definitely not Catholic - communion only the 1st Sunday of the month, sermon vs. homily, etc. Looking back on it, going to a Methodist service seems almost like going on a retreat versus going to Mass as a celebration and remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice.

Agreed op and good point. I've been to Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, and Lutheran services with friends and although they all worshiped the same God they just weren't the same. I was born into a long history of Catholics and would never consider changing. Being Catholic is one of the proudest and most precious things I have.

My wife is cradle Catholic from a long line of Irish and German Catholics. When we were dating she something to the effect of, "Not trying to start something, but I think it's really weird that non-Catholic Christians don't go to church on Christmas." That has always stuck with me, along with the rhetorical thought of "would they go on Easter if it wasn't on Sunday?"

Easter is a bad word to Fundamentalists.



 

Good point.

Edited
I grew up during the time of Vatican II and the switch to the mass in the vernacular. This was distressing to my parents beyond words.





We, under threat of excommunication, began attending the Tridentine Rite during the early 70's because my parents were concerned about what was happening in the church.





I also attend high school at an all girls Catholic School. We attended daily mass that was in the vernacular. It was a bit of a balancing act between making my parents happy and still fitting in





at school. Sometimes I would mess up the words at the school masses. Latin had been so ingrained in us by my dad.
We were taught to enter the church in silence and reverence. Genuflect. Make the sign of the cross, prayers after communion and in preparation for communion. Reconciliation was every two weeks.





If you were female we had to wear church veils and dresses. The boys had to wear dark pants white shirts and ties.
I  stayed faithful to the Tridentine mass until I met my husband around the age of 28.  On our first date he said he hadn't been to mass in years and had fallen away.





(for almost 28 years) Our second date was to attend mass. I found a church close to where he lived in KY. The following week he asked if I would attend mass again. Instead of shaking my hand he kissed me at the sign of peace. First Kiss.  Over the next two years he didn't miss! I missed the Tridentine mass and the Latin. But became a cantor and was involved in the parish.





To this day Mr. Angelfire has been faithful to that return and in 25 years of marriage hasn't missed mass except for when he had surgery one time.
I try to get to mass a bit early so I can give the appropriate reverence. (I fail)





I usually ONLY wear dresses to church.





I still own a chapel veil and on occasion sneak off to the Latin mass when I can.
All that being said, the things I've noticed is a lack of understanding of the Catechism and how the catechism reflects scripture in mainstream Catholics. Before Vatican II everything was handled very differently when educating student and even adult formation. Afterwards there was a major decline. I believe as a result of social factors from the 60's and 70's influencing a much more relaxed approach in teaching and the mass in general. It has in my humble opinion been detrimental over all.  There are also difference by diocese. Especially with how holy days are moved to Sundays.





It is destructive beyond comprehension that we don't make educating our kids the same level of intensity that we did before Vat II. This has lead to people being vulnerable to falling away.
We don't enter the church reverently. Half the congregation leaves before mass is completely over barely staying for the final blessing, people don't genuflect, people socialize in the church proper. There is a variety of attire and I shamefully admit my adult kids don't wear appropriate church attire. (they did until they turned 18. At that point we shamefully lowered the expectation hoping beyond hope they just will continue to attend mass)





The appropriate level of sacredness isn't offered. (Or taught either)
Every article coming from the bishop blames the decline of the family for this failure but I think if we were doing a better job as a Catholic community supporting the teachings outside influences wouldn't be viewed as a risk.
Also since the scandals, priest have become more administrators than shepherds in order to avoid legal issues. They have much less interaction with congregants. The priest sets the tone for how things are done at mass and education inside and outside of the family.
My thoughts.
 

Amen !

Me too. It tends to slow me down a bit and really think about the mysteries.



 

As always, I enjoy these post a great deal. They encourage me to become more active in my local church and take the time to study it more. I thank each of you for sharing with me.

No, Confiteor? That's insane. I had no idea that was 'replaceable.'



What do you think of the revision of the NO that now mirrors the Latin?



As for communion in the hand, I have mixed emotions. Clearly, not touching the consecrated host is a tremendous sign of reverence. Several early sources indicate that communion on the tongue was the usual manner of reception. Alternately, the earliest Christians often took the Eucharist home with them for consumption later, and then there is the oft quoted and as often argued quote from Cyril of Jerusalem from circa 350 AD:

   

"When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended,
nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne
for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of
the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.” (Catechesis mystagogica V, xxi-xxii, Migne Patrologia Graeca 33).



I really don't think that God will smite anyone for receiving in the hand, but not sure that its always the right way to do it.



 

I looked up my location a month back. Nearest parish that has Latin Mass is two hours away. Oh well.

I grew up when only the Priest administered Communion and it was put in your mouth and you didn't touch it. It was the hardest part in the change of Mass for me and for years I would only get in the line the Priest was in at Communion and let him do it. Now I go with the flow but I still like and respect the old ways better.

Does any one else get freaked out when the host gets dropped that they don't go through all the purification?


It absolutely frightens me.

 

I know there's a procedure but I have never seen the host dropped or the blood spilled. I have seen a Vietnamese priest yank a teenager back in front of him to consume the host when the teen tried to take it by hand back to toward his seat.

You must have had an amazing cantor!
 

Nice!



 

The  one time I saw it dropped, I  was holding a baby, & it fell from my hand.... I immediately picked  it up & consumed it. I know there are certain procedures (I don't know them anymore) but it felt right, than to leave my God on the floor...

I have never seen it done. Or at least that I can remember. It'd be hard to figure out what to do if it happened.

As to my original query, I have been doing a little research.



The SSPX, according to their webiste, recognizes Francis as Pope and is still part of the mainline RCC (i.e. full communication with Rome) although they maintain some strict objections to post Vatican II practices and norms. Although their Bishop LeFebvre and the Society was excommunicated in 1988 for ordaining bishops, Pope Benedict reinstated them in 2009.



The CMRI is strict sedevacantist and do not recognize any Pope from John XIII onward.



In 1984, permission was given to local bishops to grant 'indults' to certain churches to practice the 1962 Missal under the condition that they acknowledged the validity of the Novus Ordo. In 1988 JPII decreed a pathway for full communication with Rome. In 2007, Benedict pretty much did away with any restrictions on practicing the original Latin mass. The term 'indult church' was at one time used as a perjorative by hardcore sedevacantists and likely be excommunicated SSPX, as it implied complicity and surrender to the post-Vatican II/Novus Ordo church.



Just a brief synopsis of my research. I'm sure someone can fill in detail.

You are absolutely correct. There were two paths that "rogue" Latin Churches went. In the early stages of this post Vatican II some churches felt that the changes in the mass was extreme. Some of the priests and congregants felt it was blasphemous and chose to stay true to God and reject the Pope and the World.  I was young but remember heated discussions with the parish priest regarding my parents choice to attend the Latin Mass. My mother used to tell us never to discuss where were attending mass and most of the SSPX congreations . The local priest had turned us into the diocese for excommunication. In 1970 we began attending the SSPX church over the river into KY. It was easier to drive 45 mins from our home than deal with the diocese during that time.  The priest at St. Mary's (at the time) was excommunicated as were several other families. That did drive a desire to separate completely from the Vatican. My parents then found another SSPX church that had not completely severed ties. They offered one Latin Mass in the evening but followed Novus Ordo during the regular Sunday morning masses. There were several priests there at the time but only one risked offering the Latin Mass. It was a St. Rose of Lima.
 

Wow, thank you for this info. I knew there were problems after Vatican II but didn't realize to that extent. I have only known N. O.  But remember my parents speaking about certain problems people had with Vatican II.


I find it interesting, reading of Saints & apparitions, that many are rejected initially. But, God instructs them to be "obedient" & His Will will take care of it. I guess, same as in this situation. How else can a Church continue for 2 centuries.

http://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/covington-bishop-cautions-faithful-about-attending-schismatic-walton-ky-church/14778

There was a huge article sometime back in the Cincinnati Enquirer that spoke to the stance on both the diocese of Cincinnati and Covington. The link isn't as in depth but does make reference (on a lesser level) to how volatile this was.






















 

FIFY



 

Erf!.. Sorry.

In the C.N.S. website it seems that Pope Francis will offer a recognition of the SSPX. Is this old or new news?

I have heard it said that, EF aside, the Anglican Ordinariate's mass is the "best" one in the Latin Rite (which would have things in common with the Episcopal one). Haven't been to one yet myself. Of course, I've never gone to a true Vatican 2 mass either.

Excellent thread, TWIRE!

I am the MC at an FSSP parish, though I am sick with these crazy allergies and not really thinking with much virility at the moment.

If you are not already familiar with Michael Davies talks, I would highly encourage you look those up online.  They're kind of scattered everywhere, unfortunately, but here is one on a YouTube channel that posts very good videos (I know the guys who run it and they are not sede's, which I avoid with good reason).  This will be one of the best comparisons you will hear.



I couldn't quite tell if you are a newcomer to the Latin Mass from the OP, but I will say, it is common to become lost, not understanding, and feel as though you are merely an observer.  However, know that the priest does not "face away" from YOU, rather, he faces God with you.  You participation should become more fulfilled as you "pray" the Mass, and hopefully, with you '62 Missal.

With regards to the Episcopal service your son plays, there are varying degrees of orthodoxy with the anglican community.  Heck, even the Lutherans offer latin masses that look almost identical.  The fruits of liturgical orthodoxy does not go unrecognized outside Holy Mother Church.  But as Catholics, we all know, symbolism has no place in authentic liturgy.

I won't comment much on SSPX since I pray for them much.  The Latin Mass may not be alive today if it wasn't for them (nor the FSSP for that matter), then again, without the Jews, we wouldn't have Jesus.  There has been much talk of their being brought back into the "fold," but as of today, they are in an "irregular status" in that their weddings are not valid anywhere.  All other sacraments are completely valid with them, Reconciliation in particular due to The Year of Mercy as ordered by Pope Francis.

Ave Maria...

OP thanks for such a wonderful post.

I've become an unpredictable communicant of late.  I started receiving on the tongue, but after so many years of receiving in the hand, it feels awkward, more reverent, but awkward.  I also find myself genuflecting instead of bowing about 1/3 of the time prior to receiving the precious body.  At my parish, the pastor has rejected restoring the communion rail (apparently several requests to do so), but has told parishoners that may kneel to receive if they wish to do so.  Some do.

We have a few.  Tougher without a rail, but there are some.  I'll go for the genuflect prior if I'm not being crowded by the person behind.

I grew up in the episcopal church.  Was ( what I assume would be called an alter boy in the RCC) helped the priest with communion etc.  We used a common cup and the priest placed the "wafer " on your tongue as you knelt at the alter rail.  So that sounds familiar.  My brothers Sunday School class went and attended mass at a local RCC.  Some church switching deal..  They were offered and given communion there.  And the Priest knew they were episcopal.  I'd say they have a lot in common.  At least lithurgicaly , politically and theologically I'd say that now the episcopal church has more in common with a GLBF version of Joel Olstein.

Interesting. Generally though, passing out communion to anyone who does not believe in the Real Presence is a huge no-no.



 

And I agree with you.  I found it odd myself.  That said, a good friend of mine is Catholic and attends a baptist church with his wife.  He participates in communion there.  I think that's odd also.  If the church has a standard and belief, they should hold to it, or it is meaningless.  Be it Catholic or Baptist.

Of course they do, but the saying goes, "the house is full of people, but nobody is home."  Their apostolic succession was broken when Henry VIII crowned himself head of his church of England.  That goes without saying, many Episcopal/Anglican liturgical ceremonies are very edifying, they just don't carry the sacramental validity of the RCC.

And to the Catholic husband who attends his wife's baptist service and receives communion there, also a big no-no.  Mortally sinful in fact.

Folks, we don't get to make any of this stuff up.

I have been a sede  for 25 years.  I belong to a CMRI  parish.  Prior to that I attended Bishop  Sanborn's parish in Michigan.  I have a pretty good understanding  of the  Traddie  world.

While the Mass and sacraments are an issue, the main question you have to decide on is whether the Novus Ordo church is Catholic.  Contrary to what many Trads  believe, a valid pope can change the language of the Mass.  

Regarding the Novus Ordo, the Catholic  Church infallibly teaches that Dogmas cannot change.  So, if a Church teaches that Our Lady was not immaculately  conceived, that Church would not be Catholic.  Vatican  2 introduced  many heresies, such as its teaching on ecumenism.  Therefore, it is not Catholic  and it's hierarchy  and clergy do not have authority.  Thus, John XXIII  through Francis were/are not popes.

If you believe, Francis is the pope, then you are obliged under the pain of sin to follow him.  Not to do so, is a serious sin against the Holy Ghost.  That is a major problem with the SSPX.  They recognize the pope, but reject his authority.  They practice the sifting theory.  The pope's teachings are passed through the SSPX  sieve.  What passes through is bad, what does not  is good.  This is a blatant anti-Catholic  idea.

This is a very brief summary  of  the  issues.  Feel free to email or PM me, if you want.

I am very curious about this. What are the top three Vatican II teachings that Sede/CMRI believe are heresy? Not looking for argument, just info.

Wow, I did not know anything aboit this.... So, you no longer believe in the Apostolic succession of the Pope? Interesting.

No, we still believe in Apostolic succession.  Indefectibility  is definitely  an issue.  There are a few theories that deal with the issues.

Very simply put, I believe Francis is the Pope-elect.  He has  not meet the requirements  to take the office.  The requirement is that the Pope must be Catholic.  Further, I don't  believe  that he is a Bishop, since he was consecrated  according to the new rite of Holy Orders.

These are difficult  issues.  I believe I am correct, however I do realize I may be wrong.

Every week Francis seems to validate  my position.  His pronouncement  that the vast majority  of Catholic marriages are null and void, was  priceless.  I think his best was that there  are 3 persons, but no God.  I can not reconcile  Francis' religion  with the Catholic  faith.